Suppose the head or leader of your church decided that the Pope is right -

[Contarini]

I’m sorry I was jabbing in good humor. I do apologize.

I don’t need you to apologize. I wasn’t offended by any rudeness (I am not myself in full communion with the Bishop of Rome). I was disturbed by your individualistic approach to the Faith and your confidence that you know what the truth is in such a manner that you could unceremoniously reject those Christians with whom you regularly worship if they came to a conclusion with which you disagreed.

Were you simply joking in expressing this? Why would you joke about that?

Edwin

 

[jake23]

It is a shame to see how some of the protestants answer to this question with hate and judgement. I who was once Baptist and methodist before that found so much hate in the church and it sickened me. I went to college to become an pastor and came out Catholic instead! I could quote scripture since I was a kid, but was amazed how confused protestant where to the actual meanings of the scripture! It was not at all close to what the poeple of the biblical times meant. So much hate and judgement which is not Christlike from the Baptist and such lack of biblical meaning! Yes I would say 75% of the congregation memorized most of the new testament and new a great amount of the old, however they obviouley had no idea of the true meaning of the scripture they worked so hard to memorize! They thaught they new the meaning, but they where and are sorely wrong!

Point being is for people who are so lost with lack of true knowledge are so judgemental of others beleifs and I am not one to say for certain, but I would assume that these are the kind that will be mowt subject to judgement in the end time!

I opened my heart and filled my brain and found that yes the Pope and the Catholic church it true!

I will pray for you!

 

[larry0226]

Non sequitur. You have not shown any reason to think that the gift of the truth to the Catholic Church excludes the possibility that other religions may possess qualities of nobility. Indeed, Lumen Gentium clearly teaches that it does not exclude this.

Edwin

I guess it depends on how a person defines “noble”. Adherents of this “noble” “religion” routinely do violence to any and all others. (I believe I pointed this out on another thread.) In Africa, Muslims do violence to Christians and animists (Sudan and Nigeria are current examples). In Asia, Muslims do violence to Jews, Christians, Hindus, and even to Buddhists (as in southern Thailand). But, hold, we never see or hear of any condemnation of such murderous actions from within the Muslim fold. So, is this a sequitor: Islam possesses nobility in its teachings, at least theoretically, that is, but in practice we rarely see evidence of such nobility. ?

You fail to grasp that Muslims routinely practice two codes of ethics. One as regards fellow believers (other Muslims), and another code for all others on the planet. If you are a non-Muslim beware.

 

[Follow_Yeshua]

I don’t need you to apologize. I wasn’t offended by any rudeness (I am not myself in full communion with the Bishop of Rome). I was disturbed by your individualistic approach to the Faith and your confidence that you know what the truth is in such a manner that you could unceremoniously reject those Christians with whom you regularly worship if they came to a conclusion with which you disagreed.

Were you simply joking in expressing this? Why would you joke about that?

Edwin

Honestly, if my pastor (I don’t belong to any church,) but if I did have a pastor announce that we would be following the Bishop of Rome, I would gently tell all my peers in the congregation that I would be leaving.

Now the reason I joked about that because I thought the post about being trampled at the door was funny to me. As a Christian I must conduct myself as Christ would. I would spend time with all my peers and with texture and fabric of spirit let them know why I was leaving.

In hindsight my post does look abrasive. Thank you for calling me on that.

 

[larry0226]

What was the context in which he referred to Islam as noble?

That is relevant. And, sorry to say I was relying on a summary account of Benedict XVI’s recent trip to the Holy Land. However, I am still troubled by the remark in light of ongoing Muslim behavior around the world and because the Pope visited a mosque in Jordan, I believe, and referred to it as a sacred or holy place.

My discomfort on this issue goes back to JP II who asserted that Muslims were worshipping the same God as we Christians. (This is going off topic from the original point of this thread, sorry.) This is fallacious, God the Father does not approve of the shedding of innocent blood. This is addressed many times in the Old Testament in both the major and some of the minor prophets. Yet Allah seems not to have a problem with this - at least that is the distinct impression we get from nearly 1,400 years of history of his followers. Also, just because Mohammed claimed that he was speaking for the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob does not make it so. He was trying to win approval from the Jews of Arabia in the early seventh century and they saw through him.

Consider this: if we are really Christians and accept the divinity of Jesus, then how can we accept the assertion that there would be another Prophet six centuries later that would deny Christ?!

 

[tomarin]

That is relevant. And, sorry to say I was relying on a summary account of Benedict XVI’s recent trip to the Holy Land. However, I am still troubled by the remark in light of ongoing Muslim behavior around the world and because the Pope visited a mosque in Jordan, I believe, and referred to it as a sacred or holy place.

I ask because, having read several of his books, my impression of him is that he is a serious thinker who does not use language recklessly. If he called Islam noble (or a mosque holy) he probably had a good reason to do so, or at least a particular point he was trying to get across. I’m curious to know what that point was.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

To those that answered they would leave the church they belonged to if their leader decided one day that catholicism was where the fullness of truth lay:

What is the role of your pastor and leader or head in your church? Does this man or woman help you understand the meaning of scripture, do they advise and instruct on how you should live your life in christian values, do they conduct the sacraments, do you go to them for advice and spiritual guideance?

If this man or woman has the authority to baptise you for example into the christian community, indelibly marking you for Christ and through the power of the sacrament washing away original sin, and you believe them, why would you not believe them when they say catholicism holds the fullness of truth?

 

[Contarini]

That is relevant. And, sorry to say I was relying on a summary account of Benedict XVI’s recent trip to the Holy Land. However, I am still troubled by the remark in light of ongoing Muslim behavior around the world

That makes no sense. Are you suggesting that bad Christian behavior means that Christianity is not noble?

My discomfort on this issue goes back to JP II who asserted that Muslims were worshipping the same God as we Christians. (This is going off topic from the original point of this thread, sorry.) This is fallacious, God the Father does not approve of the shedding of innocent blood.

Non sequitur. First of all, Muslims may be wrong about some of the things God wants, but that does not mean that they aren’t worshiping the true God. This is semantics, but important semantics. If we say that being in error about God’s will is equivalent to worshiping a different God, then many Christians are worshiping the wrong God too. Perhaps we all are.

This is addressed many times in the Old Testament in both the major and some of the minor prophets.

And yet a literal reading of the Torah would lead us to conclude that God has actually *commanded *the shedding of innocent blood, if one posits that all children are innocent. Nothing like this can be found in the Qur’an or the Hadith as far as I know. Never in the classical Islamic texts are Muslims either commanded or permitted to kill children. (If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it).

Yet Allah seems not to have a problem with this - at least that is the distinct impression we get from nearly 1,400 years of history of his followers.

Are you suggesting that Christians have never killed innocent people? And furthermore, why are you assuming that people can’t make terrible mistakes about what God wants?

Consider this: if we are really Christians and accept the divinity of Jesus, then how can we accept the assertion that there would be another Prophet six centuries later that would deny Christ?!

Believing that there is one God does not mean believing that Muhammad is God’s prophet or messenger.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Honestly, if my pastor (I don’t belong to any church,) but if I did have a pastor announce that we would be following the Bishop of Rome, I would gently tell all my peers in the congregation that I would be leaving.

Now the reason I joked about that because I thought the post about being trampled at the door was funny to me. As a Christian I must conduct myself as Christ would. I would spend time with all my peers and with texture and fabric of spirit let them know why I was leaving.

In hindsight my post does look abrasive. Thank you for calling me on that.

I really don’t care about you being abrasive. Perhaps that is a moral flaw in me–I am often abrasive myself and don’t mind it from other people, particularly on the Internet (in person I am gentler and expect more gentleness).

I care about the core of what you are saying. I care about your deeply defective doctrine of the Church. That’s what I’m trying to get at.

I am not suggesting (as our RC brothers and sisters seem to be) that you should blindly follow what your pastor says. (I would happily follow any pastor or bishop who offered to lead me to Rome because I am already convinced that reunion with Rome is desirable.) I am suggesting, however, that if you are in community with a certain group of Christians, then your discernment of God’s truth is and should be shaped by that community. If they come up with a conclusion with which you strongly disagree, your first response should be “that really puzzles and disturbs me–explain it more fully and let me seek God’s mind on the matter more thoroughly,” rather than “I’m leaving.” I really don’t care whether you express yourself at that point gently or otherwise, just as I am unimpressed by people who get divorced and defend their actions by saying that the breakup was free from acrimony and that they are still friends with their ex-spouse. Violating the bonds of covenant remains a horrid thing even if it is done in the nicest manner possible. In fact, as with divorce, I’d be more likely to excuse your leaving a church if you did it in anger, because both actions are justifiable only in the face of such horrific abuse and unfaithfulness by one’s covenant partners that anger is the only possible response. If you aren’t angry, then whatever has happened is not enough to justify such an extreme action on your part. (Perhaps I should say “deeply grieved” rather than “angry”–I don’t mean that you feel vicious hatred for the people involved, but that something has happened that you believe to be deeply, horribly, unconscionably wrong, and against which you feel righteous indignation.)

Edwin

 

[Follow_Yeshua]

It is a shame to see how some of the protestants answer to this question with hate and judgement. I who was once Baptist and methodist before that found so much hate in the church and it sickened me. I went to college to become an pastor and came out Catholic instead! I could quote scripture since I was a kid, but was amazed how confused protestant where to the actual meanings of the scripture! It was not at all close to what the poeple of the biblical times meant. So much hate and judgement which is not Christlike from the Baptist and such lack of biblical meaning! Yes I would say 75% of the congregation memorized most of the new testament and new a great amount of the old, however they obviouley had no idea of the true meaning of the scripture they worked so hard to memorize! They thaught they new the meaning, but they where and are sorely wrong!

Point being is for people who are so lost with lack of true knowledge are so judgemental of others beleifs and I am not one to say for certain, but I would assume that these are the kind that will be mowt subject to judgement in the end time!

I opened my heart and filled my brain and found that yes the Pope and the Catholic church it true!

I will pray for you!

Jake,

I’m going to urge you to be a little more thick skinned. Not one insult was hurled in a hateful manner. That suffering servant/victim mentality is no way to bring what you think is the truth to life. There are bad seeds on both camps. And by you saying that 75% of your fellow believing peers were in error(is that a scientific number?)
“they obviouley had no idea of the true meaning of the scripture they worked so hard to memorize! They thaught they new the meaning, but they where and are sorely wrong!”

“but I would assume that these are the kind that will be mowt subject to judgement in the end time!”

is that not the spirit of judgement?

 

[Contarini]

I guess it depends on how a person defines “noble”. Adherents of this “noble” “religion” routinely do violence to any and all others.

Do you really want me to find examples of Christians doing violence? Just today on this forum a poster linked to a newspaper story about a pastor in Arizona who has called for the death of President Obama. (To be fair, the pastor did hope that he would die a natural death, but his reason was that he didn’t want to make a martyr–it wasn’t a moral reason at all.)

But, hold, we never see or hear of any condemnation of such murderous actions from within the Muslim fold.

You may not hear of this, because you don’t bother to be informed. But as a matter of fact Muslims do routinely condemn violence. 9/11, for instance, was condemned by a chorus of Muslim leaders across the world. And yet anti-Muslims bigots routinely claim that no such condemnations take place or that they were not sufficiently public, apparently on the grounds that Muslims are obligated to look them up personally and inform them of these condemnations. A simple Google search is too much work when it comes to overcoming one’s own prejudices, I suppose.

So, is this a sequitor: Islam possesses nobility in its teachings, at least theoretically, that is, but in practice we rarely see evidence of such nobility. ?

Clearly you have not looked very hard at all.

You fail to grasp that Muslims routinely practice two codes of ethics.

It’s not a question of failing to grasp, but of not believing unsupported claims made by someone who so far has not demonstrated much knowledge of the subject.

One as regards fellow believers (other Muslims), and another code for all others on the planet.

If you mean that Muslims regard warfare against other Muslims, or enslaving other Muslims, as evil, and have not historically had the same attitude toward warfare against non-Muslims or enslaving non-Muslims, then I agree. Of course, the same is true of Christianity. The Crusades were based on the premise that it was wicked to fight other Christians but praiseworthy to fight infidels. (I am quite aware that the Crusades were a response to Seljuk aggression–but the fact of the “double code” remains.)

There is nothing sinister in this. One has to start somewhere, and both religions start by focusing on how we should treat other members of the same religion. It doesn’t mean that “anything goes” with regard to outsiders. Islamic law laid down strict rules for the treatment of non-Muslims. They were not to be treated as equals, but they had clear rights, even in war (Christian clergy and religious, for instance, were never to be attacked). It is not clear to me that medieval Christians compare favorably in this regard.

Edwin

 

[larry0226]

Hey Edwin,

You are a character.

So, what are you really saying? If there is one God, and someone else claims that there is one God, he or she must by default, or by necessity, be worshipping the same God as you are? there are no false gods?

Non sequitor.

One of the biggest problems (and this is not a non sequitor) is that we rarely ever hear of any condemnation of murderous behavior (committed by Muslims) from within the Muslim communities around the world. Edwin, have you ever heard, or do you know of, any public condemnation by imams or even lay Muslims of murderous acts committed by Muslims?

And plese do not claim irrelevancy with me. If this religion has any nobility it ought not approve of murderous actions (by its adherents) by way of its clerics remaining silent when such atrocities are committed.

 

[Follow_Yeshua]

I really don’t care about you being abrasive. Perhaps that is a moral flaw in me–I am often abrasive myself and don’t mind it from other people, particularly on the Internet (in person I am gentler and expect more gentleness).

I care about the core of what you are saying. I care about your deeply defective doctrine of the Church. That’s what I’m trying to get at.

I am not suggesting (as our RC brothers and sisters seem to be) that you should blindly follow what your pastor says. (I would happily follow any pastor or bishop who offered to lead me to Rome because I am already convinced that reunion with Rome is desirable.) I am suggesting, however, that if you are in community with a certain group of Christians, then your discernment of God’s truth is and should be shaped by that community. If they come up with a conclusion with which you strongly disagree, your first response should be “that really puzzles and disturbs me–explain it more fully and let me seek God’s mind on the matter more thoroughly,” rather than “I’m leaving.” I really don’t care whether you express yourself at that point gently or otherwise, just as I am unimpressed by people who get divorced and defend their actions by saying that the breakup was free from acrimony and that they are still friends with their ex-spouse. Violating the bonds of covenant remains a horrid thing even if it is done in the nicest manner possible. In fact, as with divorce, I’d be more likely to excuse your leaving a church if you did it in anger, because both actions are justifiable only in the face of such horrific abuse and unfaithfulness by one’s covenant partners that anger is the only possible response. If you aren’t angry, then whatever has happened is not enough to justify such an extreme action on your part. (Perhaps I should say “deeply grieved” rather than “angry”–I don’t mean that you feel vicious hatred for the people involved, but that something has happened that you believe to be deeply, horribly, unconscionably wrong, and against which you feel righteous indignation.)

Edwin

“I care about your deeply defective doctrine of the Church. That’s what I’m trying to get at.”

What church Edwin?
Edwin, if somebody or a group of people are preaching to me unbiblical truths I will not participate. I don’t understand how that can be troublesome. I really don’t.

 

[Contarini]

Hey Edwin,

You are a character.

So, what are you really saying? If there is one God, and someone else claims that there is one God, he or she must by default, or by necessity, be worshipping the same God as you are?

Yes, unless they hold the extremely odd belief that there is a class of limited beings called “gods” which happens to have only one member. I am not aware of anyone who does believe this, although you sometimes find Christians who incautiously speak as if they do believe this.

Mormons come closest, but Mormons are in a sense polytheistic precisely because they believe that God is a being not radically different from themselves. One could make a much better case for Mormons not worshiping the same God we do than for Muslims.

there are no false gods?

Sure there are. Lots of them. A false god is a limited, created being to whom is given the ultimate devotion and worship that belongs only to the one God. We can, if you like, speak of false, limited conceptions of the one God as false gods, and that of course is where you’re going with Islam. But as I noted, the problem with this is that we wind up saying that our fellow Christians believe in false gods, and since we all have false, limited conceptions of God to some extent I think this is not a productive way of speaking.

You are assuming that worshipers of a false god claim their god to be the same kind of being we claim the true God to be. That’s pretty obviously false. It makes nonsense of the entire argument against idolatry in Isaiah, which rests on the premise that obviously the Babylonian gods are not and do not even claim to be the sort of being Yahweh claims to be. Monotheism isn’t the claim that one god is real and the others are fake. Monotheism is the claim that God exists and therefore that anything less than God should not be worshiped.

One of the biggest problems (and this is not a non sequitor) is that we rarely ever hear of any condemnation of murderous behavior (committed by Muslims) from within the Muslim communities around the world. Edwin, have you ever heard, or do you know of, any public condemnation by imams or even lay Muslims of murderous acts committed by Muslims?

Er. . . . I linked to a whole site full of such condemnations in my last post. You really, really want to ignore this, don’t you? Or you could read the work of Reza Aslan and other liberal Muslims. (Of course, the anti-Muslims want to ignore Aslan as “not a true Muslim,” but this is irrational. His ideas are naive and flawed in some fairly obvious places, but he’s clearly a Muslim and reflects one important wing of the religion as it exists today.)

If this religion has any nobility it ought not approve of murderous actions (by its adherents) by way of its clerics remaining silent when such atrocities are committed.

They don’t remain silent. You just prefer not to listen because it would burst your bubble.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

“I care about your deeply defective doctrine of the Church. That’s what I’m trying to get at.”

What church Edwin?

There’s only one. It’s present wherever the Word is preached and the sacraments are administered–wherever people gather in the name of Christ. To desert such a community is just as serious as divorcing one’s spouse and is justifiable, if at all, only under comparable circumstances.

Edwin, if somebody or a group of people are preaching to me unbiblical truths I will not participate.

Right, and this assumes that you, as a private individual, have infallible (or at least reasonably certain) knowledge of what is and is not Biblical truth. That’s the defective doctrine to which I refer.

I am not a Roman Catholic. I am not talking about some authority set over you to which you blindly submit (that’s a caricature of the Catholic view, but it’s a caricature to which the posts of Catholics on this forum sometimes unfortunately conform). I am talking about the Christian community. Without that community, you cannot be a Christian at all. Without it, you cannot interpret Scripture in a Christian manner. So if the particular community to which you belong comes up with something “unbiblical,” this should deeply shake your sense of what is Biblical in the first place. I don’t mean that you should abandon it, only that you should seek God for guidance and should look to the broader Christian community (outside the borders of your particular congregation) to help you in your discernment.

But then, you said earlier that you didn’t belong to a church. So to be honest, I can’t consider you a Christian in the full sense of the word. You no doubt sincerely believe in Christ, but you are a partial, truncated bit of the Body cut off and dying. You need to be grafted back in.

See, I have no problem with being abrasive

Edwin

 

[jake23]

Jake,

I’m going to urge you to be a little more thick skinned. Not one insult was hurled in a hateful manner. That suffering servant/victim mentality is no way to bring what you think is the truth to life. There are bad seeds on both camps. And by you saying that 75% of your fellow believing peers were in error(is that a scientific number?)
“they obviouley had no idea of the true meaning of the scripture they worked so hard to memorize! They thaught they new the meaning, but they where and are sorely wrong!”

“but I would assume that these are the kind that will be mowt subject to judgement in the end time!”

is that not the spirit of judgement?

You are a great example of somoene who does not know the meaning of what they read. 100% of the congregation was wrong. I said 75% of them had the new testament memorized! Look how easy it was for you to get lost in basic writings! My words are no that of judgement, but are charities of truth! There is a difference between fact and judegment anyways! Thank you for being a great example how easy it is for one to misunderstand and go astray from an authers meanings.

You are also manipulative as far as saying these comments, especialy from the Baptist was not of an hateful manner. I will pray that you will open your eyes and ears to the truth and let let go of the dishonesty. Good luck!

 

[Follow_Yeshua]

You are a great example of somoene who does not know the meaning of what they read. 100% of the congregation was wrong. I said 75% of them had the new testament memorized! Look how easy it was for you to get lost in basic writings! My words are no that of judgement, but are charities of truth! There is a difference between fact and judegment anyways! Thank you for being a great example how easy it is for one to misunderstand and go astray from an authers meanings.

You are also manipulative as far as saying these comments, especialy from the Baptist was not of an hateful manner. I will pray that you will open your eyes and ears to the truth and let let go of the dishonesty. Good luck!

You have me stumped. I truly don’t understand you but I still love ya!

 

[JRKH]

Is it just me or has this thread kind of jumped off topic???

I thought that the OP wanted to know about the relationship between pastor and laity in the Protestant world and not about all of these other issues.

Does anyone have answers for the questions posed in posts 10, 11 and 27 that relate directly to the topic??

Peace
James

 

[Departed_Light]

Isn’t this what happened with Peter Gilchrist in Nashville? He wrote a book called Becoming Orthodox where he chronicles his study and conversion to Orthodoxy. I believe most of his congregation came with him and the other leaders.

If one of the people in my life decided to become Catholic I would rejoice that they are attempting to follow Christ in the way they have discerned.

 

[Contarini]

There was apparently some strong sentiment for union with Rome among the clergy of the Diocese of Fort Worth last year. I’m not sure how well it went down with the laity, though. (I use the past tense simply because I don’t know the situation now–Fort Worth is part of the Anglican Church of North America now and perhaps the pro-Rome clergy have accepted this.)

Edwin