Satan is smarter than you are

[Shlemele]

DJJG:

I have to disagree with the premise that he is smarter than me. After all Satin choose himself.

Have you sinned? Guess what, he got ya!

As for the critique of the bible studies I’d like to know what sources your pulling from here. In my church we had small groups that met on Sunday nights for bible study and fellowship. These times were not just for reading scripture but for fellowship. We believe wherever two or more are gathered in the name of Christ he is there too. Part of that is us asking him to guide our hearts and minds to what he would have us learn. To read the origional post you would think that we all get together and try to cram the Bible into our own agenda. Well EVERY church is guilty of that, regardless of how centralized or de-centralized it is.
Sgt Sweaters:

When Christ is led into the wilderness in Matt. 4, the devil tempts him 3 times. Interestingly, in the 2nd temptation, Satan uses Scripture to try to lead Jesus astray. Of course, Jesus refutes him with more Scripture

From this passage it seems like knowing the scriptures is a good way to keep from falling into satins lies. In my college we were required to take 4 semester classes in bible courses. My wife and I had some of these classes together (she loved Ruth) and those were some of the closest times we shared. My Acts professor was an outstanding instructor because he understood the texts and astounded me in his humility. Almost every class he would bring a new insight into the word of God. You can hear the word every Sunday at mass but unless you understand some of the cultural nuances ther are parts that loose their meaning in translation.

Take the sermon on the mount for example, many people think that when Jesus said to walk two miles if someone asks you to walk one just means that, do double what is asked of you. If you know a bit about the culture of the day you understand that in that time a Roman soldier could have someone carry a load for him up to one mile. If that person took one step over though the soldier was subject to punishment. Just think of how that changes the tone of the passage! If all of a sudden people started gladly going over the mile mark and Roman soldiers were risking punishment every time the made someone carry their load what do you think would happen? It seems to me that the sermon may have had more to do with finding non-violent ways to challenge unjust authority than just laying down and allowing injustice to take place. There are other examples but I won’t go into them, suffice to say that from the protestant perspective to go into the world without knowledge of the bible is to be unprepared for the traps the enemy sets before us.

I know I’m not going to change any ones mind here. I’m not under any delusions that you want to hear my views on this. I do hope though that I have challenged what you believe (I am trying to challenge my beliefs, I came here to find answers and to be a better husband to my Catholic wife).

Traditions are great but they have caused problems in the past. For my church tradition kept us from reaching out to our community as soon as we should have. The need for thing to be clean and in order cost us precious time and energy, energy that could have been used to make our city a better place for our youth. One reason I could never be RC is the emphasis on tradition to the point that is on the same level as scripture.

In closing I want to reiterate I’m not here to change your mind, I’m here to express my opinion and possible bring a new idea or two to the table. If you want to have a good read try The Upside Down Kingdom by Donald B. Kraybill. It challenges our ideas about the kingdom of heaven and maybe will help you think about God in different ways. Never be afraid to change your mind about how you understand God, after all when Jesus walked the earth it was the ones who though they knew it all that he had the harshest words for.

 

[deb1]

If you mean on the level of pure knowledge, well the devil has got us beat. He’s been around for eons and has seen it all. So yes, the devil is smarter then us.

But, I think that the youngest child who believes in Jesus is far wiser then the devil. The devil has intelligence not wisdom or else he would still be in heaven today.

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

Shlemele:

As for the critique of the bible studies I’d like to know what sources your pulling from here.

Personal experience, mainly.

In my church we had small groups that met on Sunday nights for bible study and fellowship. These times were not just for reading scripture but for fellowship. We believe wherever two or more are gathered in the name of Christ he is there too. Part of that is us asking him to guide our hearts and minds to what he would have us learn.

Fellowship is great, but not the end goal. But I’d question your use of “when two are more are gathered…” Consider the greater context of the passage; Christ is addressing Church discipline. With your emphasis on exegesis, it makes a difference.

To read the origional post you would think that we all get together and try to cram the Bible into our own agenda. Well EVERY church is guilty of that, regardless of how centralized or de-centralized it is.

At least you’re honest.

Take the sermon on the mount for example, many people think that when Jesus said to walk two miles if someone asks you to walk one just means that, do double what is asked of you. If you know a bit about the culture of the day you understand that in that time a Roman soldier could have someone carry a load for him up to one mile. If that person took one step over though the soldier was subject to punishment. Just think of how that changes the tone of the passage! If all of a sudden people started gladly going over the mile mark and Roman soldiers were risking punishment every time the made someone carry their load what do you think would happen? It seems to me that the sermon may have had more to do with finding non-violent ways to challenge unjust authority than just laying down and allowing injustice to take place.

This is the same kind of attitude that leads people to insist that to “turn the other cheek” is a way to show defiance, rather than to humbly withstand persecution. What of when Christ says, a breath prior, to give your cloak as well as your tunic? More passive resistance?

There are other examples but I won’t go into them, suffice to say that from the protestant perspective to go into the world without knowledge of the bible is to be unprepared for the traps the enemy sets before us.

In my experience, the Protestant perspective is to try to figure out everything on your own, which is a dangerous endeavor. Anything you can’t figure out, go to a theologian or scholar, but only if you happen to like their interpretation. It’s a very choosy perspective, and in my judgment, not very trustworthy.

Traditions are great but they have caused problems in the past. For my church tradition kept us from reaching out to our community as soon as we should have. The need for thing to be clean and in order cost us precious time and energy, energy that could have been used to make our city a better place for our youth. One reason I could never be RC is the emphasis on tradition to the point that is on the same level as scripture.

Maybe you misunderstand Tradition. Try this: LINK

In closing I want to reiterate I’m not here to change your mind, I’m here to express my opinion and possible bring a new idea or two to the table…after all when Jesus walked the earth it was the ones who though they knew it all that he had the harshest words for.

I appreciate your challenge.

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

deb1:

If you mean on the level of pure knowledge, well the devil has got us beat. He’s been around for eons and has seen it all. So yes, the devil is smarter then us.

But, I think that the youngest child who believes in Jesus is far wiser then the devil. The devil has intelligence not wisdom or else he would still be in heaven today.

I’ll agree to that. Like I said in a previous post, he did choose the foolish way. Such a shame (such an understatement!).

 

[grotto]

C. S. Lewis wrote “The Screwtape Letters”. Try to find a copy and plan on reading it with a lot of thought. It will scare the Bjabbers out of you and help you know what we are all up against! (Its not too long - but PACKED!)

 

[Shlemele]

Sgt Sweaters:

This is the same kind of attitude that leads people to insist that to “turn the other cheek” is a way to show defiance, rather than to humbly withstand persecution. What of when Christ says, a breath prior, to give your cloak as well as your tunic? More passive resistance?

Actually yes, in the times of Jesus one could demand ones cloak but not the tunic. If one were to give another his tunic he would be basically naked. Because in that time the shame of nakedness was on the person who caused it, and not the person who was naked it could very well have been another form of passive resistance.

The reason people say that turning the other cheek can be a form of passive resistance is because the passage refers to someone striking you on your right cheek. Well to be struck on your right cheek one would use the left hand, the hand that was used in the day to strike slaves and those considered lower on the social ladder than you. To turn your left cheek makes that person hit you again with the right hand, making that person either strike you as his equal or not strike you at all.

Don’t get me wrong, my church believes very strongly that we will be persecuted. We believe though that it is ok to protest things we believe are wrong hence passive resistance. A good way to put it may be that I would gladly die for many causes, there is none however I would be prepared to kill for.

 

[LtTony]

Excellent post. It is precisely why we need to “armor ourselves in Christ” and in his Church.

Jim

 

[Malachi4U]

Sgt Sweaters:

When Christ is led into the wilderness in Matt. 4, the devil tempts him 3 times. Interestingly, in the 2nd temptation, Satan uses Scripture to try to lead Jesus astray. Of course, Jesus refutes him with more Scripture.

The problem with the Bible study method of most Protestants is that the Word becomes completely subjective, and they think they need to figure everything out on their own. In their system of self-interpretation, they must read everything for themselves and live according to what they find. But Satan knows the Holy Scriptures better than we ever will on this earth, and he can use even them to cause people to stumble.

I guess I don’t really have a point, other than thank God for authority and Tradition! I think the 2nd temptation of Christ is all the more evidence for our need for a Church that is established by Christ himself, that we may not be deceived, even by Holy Scripture.

Sgt Sweaters,

I think, very possibly, perhaps, you have just made the most logical and totally decisive blow against Protestantism right here.

You statement includes just about every issue that is wrong with Protestant ‘opinions’ on theology and why they have so much trouble with Scripture and ‘scales’ over their eyes. Why they can’t even agree on some of the most basic theological facts. Why they disolve without notice. Why they split like ameba’s in a petry dish. Why they rewrite Scripture. Etc…

I am going to add you post to my permanent notes as it is one of the best statement of facts I’ve seen on any forum!

Great JOB!

 

[Malachi4U]

PS.

I don’t think Satan is smarter then us per say, he just has an easy time giving people easy theology to schism them away from Christs Catholic Church. If you look for easy feel good now theology then Protestantism seems at first glance very attractive (and it WAS to me! ).

Satan knows how to trick and decieve, he’s done it for years before Luther.

Stay loyal to Jesus, be of one body, one mind, one Faith, one Catholic Church. Avoid the evils of the schismatics that Scripture warns us about.:tsktsk:

Being Catholic and loyal to Jesus makes it easy to see Satans deception of the countless Christian sects. Keep adding a little more lies each time they schism like a virus. Eventually the virus mutates into something else, like when they become immune to medication.

Jesus never changes. What was right yesterday is right today and will be tommorrow. The Catholic Faith and Morals cannot morph like the Baptists or Mormons or Methodists or Lutherans, etc. because Christs body remains loyal to Christ and what he gave us.

Loyalty, not rebellion/schism.

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

Shlemele:

Actually yes, in the times of Jesus one could demand ones cloak but not the tunic. If one were to give another his tunic he would be basically naked. Because in that time the shame of nakedness was on the person who caused it, and not the person who was naked it could very well have been another form of passive resistance.

Do you not see how it cheapens the ministry of Christ to reduce everything to passive aggression? All else aside, it makes our Lord petty.

The reason people say that turning the other cheek can be a form of passive resistance is because the passage refers to someone striking you on your right cheek. Well to be struck on your right cheek one would use the left hand, the hand that was used in the day to strike slaves and those considered lower on the social ladder than you. To turn your left cheek makes that person hit you again with the right hand, making that person either strike you as his equal or not strike you at all.

So, Christ was giving us a play-by-play of what we should do in the event of someone slapping us with their left hand? Is this the only sort of assault that can be subverted, making the assailant respect us?
I wonder further if Christ was sure to offer his right cheek to the Romans as they scourged him, beat him, spat upon him, and crowned him with thorns to show that, by God, they would look upon him as an equal! Or, do you suppose, he allowed himself to be led as a lamb to the slaughter, profoundly humbled, subject.
Remember, in any case, that there is a word in Matthew 5:39. That word is, “also.” “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” In addition to. Not opposed to.

Don’t get me wrong, my church believes very strongly that we will be persecuted. We believe though that it is ok to protest things we believe are wrong hence passive resistance. A good way to put it may be that I would gladly die for many causes, there is none however I would be prepared to kill for.

I’m all about protest. But we don’t have to hijack Christ’s teachings in order to justify it.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Shlemele:

From this passage it seems like knowing the scriptures is a good way to keep from falling into satins lies.

I agree. And of course the only way in which one can truly understand Scripture is in light of 2,000 years of God-breathed Tradition. Outside of Sacred Tradition, you’re likely to fall into grave errors in interpretation, such as the one I’m about to refute.

You can hear the word every Sunday at mass but unless you understand some of the cultural nuances ther are parts that loose their meaning in translation.

Again, I agree. But Protestants are faced with the same problem. You can hear the Word preached every Sunday at your service, but unless you understand the cultural aspect, as well as the way in which early Christians interpreted the same passage, parts lose their meaning, or take on a completely erroneous meaning.

Take the sermon on the mount for example, many people think that when Jesus said to walk two miles if someone asks you to walk one just means that, do double what is asked of you. If you know a bit about the culture of the day you understand that in that time a Roman soldier could have someone carry a load for him up to one mile. If that person took one step over though the soldier was subject to punishment. Just think of how that changes the tone of the passage! If all of a sudden people started gladly going over the mile mark and Roman soldiers were risking punishment every time the made someone carry their load what do you think would happen? It seems to me that the sermon may have had more to do with finding non-violent ways to challenge unjust authority than just laying down and allowing injustice to take place.

This gross misinterpretation makes my point. And Protestants accuse Catholics of not following the Bible literally . . . geez! I don’t say that to be rude; I say it because it’s very true in this case. The interpretation you put forth-- that Jesus was not teaching us to submit, but rather to resist-- is a complete rejection of the obvious meaning of the passage. It requires one to perform mental gymnastics to even begin to see your view of this passage.

I really can’t stand this mind set-- that Jesus was not teaching us how to submit, but rather resist. It’s completely contrary to Jesus Himself and to how we ought to live as Christians. Indeed, Our Lord was urging us to “not resist and evil person.” Rather, we give and give and give, and if asked, we give more. Know why? Jesus did!

Can you not see the parallels? Jesus died for whom? Us. We are what? Sinners. Sinners are what kind of people? Evil people. And Jesus gave in what way to us? Freely and Fully. *He gave us that which we did not deserve. *This is exactly what Our Lord is calling us to do in this particular passage (not to mention a large chunk of the Gospels): give to everyone-- even evil men who don’t deserve anything-- freely and fully. To suggest Our Lord was giving us a secret message to resist authority is blasphemous. It’s a good thing Our Lord didn’t resist authority; I dare say we wouldn’t be forgiven. Philippians 2:8: “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.”

Jesus was obedient completely and perfectly. He didn’t have to be, but He was, for the sake of the Kingdom. We are called to be obedient completely and perfectly as Our Lord, with the help of His grace (provided, obviously, that such obedience does not conflict with obedience to Christ).

There are other examples but I won’t go into them, suffice to say that from the protestant perspective to go into the world without knowledge of the bible is to be unprepared for the traps the enemy sets before us.

My friend, I only say this out of genuine concern, but it is you who have been confused by the enemy in regards to your interpretation of this passage. This is what makes private interpretation so dangerous.

Traditions are great but they have caused problems in the past. For my church tradition kept us from reaching out to our community as soon as we should have. The need for thing to be clean and in order cost us precious time and energy, energy that could have been used to make our city a better place for our youth. One reason I could never be RC is the emphasis on tradition to the point that is on the same level as scripture.

Don’t confuse Tradition with traditions. It’s a tradition that my family decorates the tree together every Christmas. But Tradition tells me that contraception was condemned in the early Church. (Reason tells me it’s immoral).

CONTINUED . . .

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

In closing I want to reiterate I’m not here to change your mind, I’m here to express my opinion and possible bring a new idea or two to the table. If you want to have a good read try The Upside Down Kingdom by Donald B. Kraybill. It challenges our ideas about the kingdom of heaven and maybe will help you think about God in different ways. Never be afraid to change your mind about how you understand God, after all when Jesus walked the earth it was the ones who though they knew it all that he had the harshest words for.

I’d like to recommend a book as well: Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers.

Found on Amazon: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140444750/qid=1117146894/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-8597583-7362341?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It’s definitely worth a read. I believe it will challenge your current views about Jesus and His Church. It’s not a “Catholic” or “Protestant” book. It’s simply a collection of writings from the early Christians-- defined as the “apostles of the Apostles.” Most writings in this collection date anywhere from 70 AD - 150 AD. So very very early writings.

 

[Shlemele]

Sgt Sweaters:

Do you not see how it cheapens the ministry of Christ to reduce everything to passive aggression? All else aside, it makes our Lord petty.

Don’t confuse passive aggression with passive resistance

passive–aggressive
Function: adjective
: being, marked by, or displaying behavior characterized by expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive way (as through procrastination, stubbornness, and unwillingness to communicate) <a passive–aggressive personality>

passive resistance

n : peaceful resistance to a government by fasting or refusing to cooperate

The world Jesus was born into was unjust, just as our world is today. I don’t think it’s petty to challenge the way people think about bringing change to their governments, quite the contrary I think it is petty to solve everything with fists and bullets if there is a possibility that Jesus had provided us another way.
Sgt Sweaters:

So, Christ was giving us a play-by-play of what we should do in the event of someone slapping us with their left hand? Is this the only sort of assault that can be subverted, making the assailant respect us?

Lets go back to the intent of my original post, knowing the world in which Christ lived serves to shed insight on his teaching. I don’t think Jesus was giving us a play-by-play this was a analogy, a story used to teach a lesson. Jesus used the culture of the time to teach many lessons and not all of them translate into our modern culture. For example the verse that says it’s better to pluck out your eve than to let it cause you to sin. This is an example of hedging. Hedging is a method of over-exaggerating a point to show where the end-point of that thinking is. Letting your eyes covet what they want leads to you fixating on that sin, one thing leads to another and before you know it you are in the middle of that sin that started with a glance. Jesus was not telling us to rip out eyes out, he was using a tool of the day to warn us about letting sin gain a foothold in our lives. Judging from the fact all of us haven’t pulled out our eves I’d say most of us know that Jesus wasn’t talking literally. The passage takes on a much richer meaning when we look through the perspective of the time.

Most teachers of the bible that I have known, be they Catholic or Protestant have some working knowledge of Latin and Greek, why do you think that is? Not everything translates well. By understanding the world Jesus lived in we better understand his teachings, that is all I am saying.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Shlemele:

Don’t confuse passive aggression with passive resistance

The world Jesus was born into was unjust, just as our world is today. I don’t think it’s petty to challenge the way people think about bringing change to their governments, quite the contrary I think it is petty to solve everything with fists and bullets if there is a possibility that Jesus had provided us another way.

Lets go back to the intent of my original post, knowing the world in which Christ lived serves to shed insight on his teaching. I don’t think Jesus was giving us a play-by-play this was a analogy, a story used to teach a lesson. Jesus used the culture of the time to teach many lessons and not all of them translate into our modern culture. For example the verse that says it’s better to pluck out your eve than to let it cause you to sin. This is an example of hedging. Hedging is a method of over-exaggerating a point to show where the end-point of that thinking is. Letting your eyes covet what they want leads to you fixating on that sin, one thing leads to another and before you know it you are in the middle of that sin that started with a glance. Jesus was not telling us to rip out eyes out, he was using a tool of the day to warn us about letting sin gain a foothold in our lives. Judging from the fact all of us haven’t pulled out our eves I’d say most of us know that Jesus wasn’t talking literally. The passage takes on a much richer meaning when we look through the perspective of the time.

Most teachers of the bible that I have known, be they Catholic or Protestant have some working knowledge of Latin and Greek, why do you think that is? Not everything translates well. By understanding the world Jesus lived in we better understand his teachings, that is all I am saying.

I think you’re avoiding Sgt’s question. Do honestly believe that Jesus was telling us not to submit and be humble, but rather “make sure your assailant knows you’re equal to him”?

Please respond.

 

[Shlemele]

UKcatholicGuy, I’m not pulling this from the top of my head, I’m actually using references from the book “The upside Down Kingdom” by Donald B. Kraybill. I’m not saying this is the end all and be all of interpretations, just that being stuck in the mindset that Jesus couldn’t have provided us with multiple lessons from the same scripture is entirely within his power.

UKcatholicGuy:

I agree. And of course the only way in which one can truly understand Scripture is in light of 2,000 years of God-breathed Tradition. Outside of Sacred Tradition, you’re likely to fall into grave errors in interpretation, such as the one I’m about to refute.

yes the Catholic Church maintains that they have been around the longest but what is 2,000 years to God? My Faith has been around for about 500 years, does that make mine any more or less valid just because of the amount of time it has been around? If we follow this line of reasoning then we should all find the oldest religion and join that. The Catholic Church has some great faith Traditions and I celebrate many of them with my wife. There are some pretty nasty things that have happened over the last 2,000 years as well. many of these thing the church has apologized for as well, witch I commend. The fact remains though that you can’t call everything the church has done God-Breathed. Your church as made mistakes and so has mine. Your church has had about 2000 years to make them mine had had about 500. There was a reason for the counter-reformation (or Catholic Reformation).

UKcatholicGuy:

Again, I agree. But Protestants are faced with the same problem. You can hear the Word preached every Sunday at your service, but unless you understand the cultural aspect, as well as the way in which early Christians interpreted the same passage, parts lose their meaning, or take on a completely erroneous meaning.

Whenever someone decides to twist scripture to fit into their own opinions you have this problem, Protestant or Catholic. If you were to look at the situation the modern Catholic Church finds itself in nowhere are priests who have been lead astray to believe that sex with children or with others of the same sex is ok. There are pastors in protestant churches that have done the same thing, so don’t think I’m trying to bash anyone here I’m just saying your church is just as vulnerable as mine when it comes to leading people astray, that is why we have larger groups of churches (in my case we have the counsel of churches, in yours the diocese) to protect our congregations from those who would try to make their opinions sound like Gods.

This reminds me of an experience I had with the Catholic church in my home town. My wife and I had been married for about a year (she is a RC) and I wanted to be a good husband and attend mass with her. Well my home town is largely Hispanic and had recently gotten a new priest (I loved the old one, he was a wise man, involved in his community and built many bridges with other churches in the community). Well about five minutes into his homily I must have given my wife a look of sheer terror. she whispered in my ear “this wasn’t what I though it was going to be like either” and we left mid-way through the sermon. Now I had been to many masses by that time but never so wierded out as by that one. I don’t remember the specifics but it was very heavily into mysticism. Come to find out later the priest checked himself into detox for prescription drug abuse. Same church, two VERY different interpretations. The Catholic church allows priest certain liberties when it comes to interpreting scriptures but just as in my church there are lines.

To be honest we could write back and forth all day accusing each others churches of whatever we can dig up, truth be told we would both be right and wrong in equal proportions. The thing that comforts me is that at the end of the day I’m just as happy if someone is sitting in a Catholic or Protestant pew. God allowed us freedom of opinion and I thank him for yours, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it.

 

[Shlemele]

UKcatholicGuy:

I think you’re avoiding Sgt’s question. Do honestly believe that Jesus was telling us not to submit and be humble, but rather “make sure your assailant knows you’re equal to him”?

Please respond.

must make eyes focus… runnig low on caffine… must keep… posting…

No I don’t think that is what I was saying (and I think I went into this later in the post) I was saying that the culture influences the meaning of text. The sermon on the mount was an exsample, just as was hedging.

As submission and humility goes I think my church has been on the right path in that area. We Mennonites have been persicuted just as much as any other group, we remain one of few though that hold to our pacifist beliefs though. Pride and worldly things that would detract from out relationship with God are discouraged and there are still some circles in the Mennonite church where women cover their hair to avoid vanity.

I was not trying to offer Kraybills opinions as that of my church, I just think it is a good exercise to introdice new ideas from time to time.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Shlemele:

yes the Catholic Church maintains that they have been around the longest but what is 2,000 years to God?

It’s everything. 2,000 years ago His Son died on the cross and established His Church.

My Faith has been around for about 500 years, does that make mine any more or less valid just because of the amount of time it has been around? If we follow this line of reasoning then we should all find the oldest religion and join that.

Again, the 2,000 yr old claim, which you appear to accept, is everything. Either the Catholic Church was founded in 33AD by Christ Himself or it wasn’t. If you indeed agree that it’s 2,000 yrs old (making it the Church established by Christ), then you have a grave obligation to become a full member. I say full member because as a baptized individual, the RCC recognizes (and rightly so) that you are a Christian, though separated. Had you no knowledge, through no fault of your own, that the Catholic Church was the Church established by Christ, you would be in a different situation. But as it is, it appears that you acknowledge this fact. Therefore, and I tell you this because I am concerned, you have a duty to join fully the Catholic Church. We will certainly welcome you!

The fact remains though that you can’t call everything the church has done God-Breathed. Your church as made mistakes and so has mine. Your church has had about 2000 years to make them mine had had about 500. There was a reason for the counter-reformation (or Catholic Reformation).

I completely agree. The Church has committed moral crimes in her 2,000 yr history. But this is completely different than Tradition. You’re talking simply about history. Tradition is faith passed by mouth; think of it as the Bible in spoken form. It was handed on from generation to generation. An example is when Paul says to obey everything he has taught the early Christians, whether by letter or “word of mouth.” The “word of mouth” he speaks of would be an example of Tradition. The Assumption of Mary is an example of Tradition.

Whenever someone decides to twist scripture to fit into their own opinions you have this problem, Protestant or Catholic. If you were to look at the situation the modern Catholic Church finds itself in nowhere are priests who have been lead astray to believe that sex with children or with others of the same sex is ok. There are pastors in protestant churches that have done the same thing, so don’t think I’m trying to bash anyone here I’m just saying your church is just as vulnerable as mine when it comes to leading people astray, that is why we have larger groups of churches (in my case we have the counsel of churches, in yours the diocese) to protect our congregations from those who would try to make their opinions sound like Gods.

Yes, the Church is indeed full of sinful people, including some of her leaders, as is any Church or community of believers. But the difference between a Catholic who hears a bogus sermon at Mass and a Protestant who hears a bogus sermon in a service is that only the Catholic sermon can truly be called bogus. That sounds weird, so let me clarify. The Catholic has an absolute authority by which to test the validity of a priest’s (or anyone else who claims to be speaking for the Church) statement: Doctrine. if a priest says that the Bible allows for artificial contraception, I can absolutely prove him wrong by showing him official Church documents which condemn artificial contraception without exception. Now, on the other hand, if a Protestant hears something in a sermon which he thinks is incorrect, he has no definite authority-- other than his own interpretation of Scripture-- to appeal to in order to prove the preacher is wrong. That’s the problem: there truly can’t be any right or wrong in Protestantism because every man has a “right” to his own interpretation. If I believe that Jesus’ death and resurrection is purely symbolic, you can’t tell me I’m wrong. Sure, you’d point to the Bible and say the Bible proves me wrong, but I would then tell you, “that’s just your interpretation. I interpret it symbolically.” The scary thing is, we’d both be equally right in terms of Protestant theology, because the 2 pillars of Protestantism is 1. faith alone and 2. scripture alone. And my symbolic interpretation of Jesus’ death and resurrection does not violate either of those pillars. Do you see the necessity to have some kind of final authority outside of the Bible? After all, it was an outside authority that determined the Bible was infallible.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

CONTINUED . . .

To be honest we could write back and forth all day accusing each others churches of whatever we can dig up, truth be told we would both be right and wrong in equal proportions. The thing that comforts me is that at the end of the day I’m just as happy if someone is sitting in a Catholic or Protestant pew. God allowed us freedom of opinion and I thank him for yours, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it.

You sound as though you may be flirting with religious indifference, the idea that one religion is just as good as the next. This idea is a grave error. God is Truth and His Truth is completely and fully revealed in Jesus Christ. That means that 2 opposing “doctrines” cannot both be true. One must be wrong. And dont you care to know which one is wrong? Dont you want to know the Truth-- and the whole Truth?

 

[J.W.B]

You know, it’s strange to think about this, but Satan I’de imagine is probaly the most beautiful of angels there is, yet his heart is pure black. That’s kinds strange just to meditate on that. Like what was he like when he was good, when he obeyed God. But then the angel decided that he wanted to be God, like humans too I guess. But I’m sure he doesn’t have a tail and two horns but is very beautiful in appearence but pure darkness in heart.But then think about God, an UNCREATED being. If He is on your side (eyes filling with tears) WHO DO YOU FEAR? No one!!!

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

Shlemele:

No I don’t think that is what I was saying (and I think I went into this later in the post) I was saying that the culture influences the meaning of text. The sermon on the mount was an exsample, just as was hedging.

I think what UKcatholicGuy was getting at, Shlemele, is that the interpretation to be trusted on matters like these is that of those who actually lived in the same culture as Jesus. They have more credibility than those who have merely studied it. I think it might be considered arrogant to believe we might know their daily lives better than they themselves did.