Catholics are not Christians?

[dullard]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX
I have yet to figure out your nick on here. Good summary.

My nick is a fight against the egotistical aliases that were so popular in the past. For example, complete morons would call themselves Einstein and then post useless garbage hoping that their alias would fool people. I went the opposite route. I used a humble name and hope my posts will speak for themselves. Thanks for the compliment.

A little background about my previous post: I'm an athiest and my wife is a Catholic. She was never strongly attached to many of their "rituals" (for lack of a better word) and thus was always looking for something a bit different. She is still too afraid to leave the Catholic church though. Recently she has gotten into reading all of Sylvia Browne's books. Those got her thinking about the latter definition of Christian. It is my wife (Catholic remember) who is beginning to think that Catholics are not true Christians since she is using the latter definition. I myself don't know all the gritty details, but she seems to feel strongly about it.

 

[djplayx714]

Here is one startling thing that Christians argue with me over. They tell me that Jesus Christ is God.

Now if I remembered the hierarchy correctly enough it was God and then his son Jesus, etc etc. So it didnt sound at all reasonable to me that the son of God is actually God. I actually by natural reaction thought "BLASPHEMY!". I dont really know if I'm right or wrong since there are so many contradictions and such in the general religion so any insight would be nice.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
because you think of sin as actions we have taken that we are responsible for. sin isn't an action it's a condition. because of adam and eve all humanity is left without the ability to communicate with god, separation from god IS sin, it's ONLY threw the renewal of the spirit that we are again able to communicate to god. again read john 3 again.

It was hard to have a rebutal to this one as I've never heard this argument before. So I found this verse:

ROM 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Sin is a verb, an action where we do something that isn't right with God. Please find a verse to backup that sin itself is a condition (I know "living in sin" is a condition)

I think he means to say that sinning is a condition: the human condition. It is man's nature to sin, therefore it is his condition.
Make more sense now?
Oh, and sin isn't seperation from G-d (although it is the cause of man's seperation from G-d), that's the literal definition of hell. Hell is defined as "the complete seperation from G-d and His Holy Spirit."

that's based on a premise, the premise that sin is disobedience to god's law. i just don't agree with that premise.

the traditional view of good vs evil is good = obedience to god and evil = obedience to satan (the devil). i just don't agree with those premises.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
because you think of sin as actions we have taken that we are responsible for. sin isn't an action it's a condition. because of adam and eve all humanity is left without the ability to communicate with god, separation from god IS sin, it's ONLY threw the renewal of the spirit that we are again able to communicate to god. again read john 3 again.

It was hard to have a rebutal to this one as I've never heard this argument before. So I found this verse:

ROM 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Sin is a verb, an action where we do something that isn't right with God. Please find a verse to backup that sin itself is a condition (I know "living in sin" is a condition)

I think he means to say that sinning is a condition: the human condition. It is man's nature to sin, therefore it is his condition.
Make more sense now?
Oh, and sin isn't seperation from G-d (although it is the cause of man's seperation from G-d), that's the literal definition of hell. Hell is defined as "the complete seperation from G-d and His Holy Spirit."

that's based on a premise, the premise that sin is disobedience to god's law. i just don't agree with that premise.

the traditional view of good vs evil is good = obedience to god and evil = obedience to satan (the devil). i just don't agree with those premises.

Everything's based on a premise. Whether or not you accept said premise is totally up to you.

 

[PlatinumGold]

to expound a bit farther on the whole obedience thing.

the basis of the belief that god demands obedience is based on scripture that speaks of obedience to god's law. i don't deny them or their existence. but i disagree with the interpretations of them. basically because i disagree with many peoples views on how "scripture" came to be and how it is to be understood.

the key to the bible however, is to see that it's purpose is to reconnect god and man. one should focus on the spiritual and not the political, scientific etc that also is found in the bible.

to be honest. i can't give you a full answer because i'd probably be typing here for days.

suffice it to say, imo, the conflict of good and evil is a conflict of ideas. god represents a universe of equal moral entities, satan wants a universe where every living being is obedient to him.

if it really was just a disagreement about who to obey and we accept the premise that god is the stronger of the two, then regardless of the nature of god, there really is only one choice. but it's not, it's a conflict of ideologies. of different views of the universe.

in the beginning before all things god existed, any star, universe or galaxy that he made had ZERO net effect on the universe except that the universe is larger of course because EVERY atom, molecule, planet, star, galaxy was a complete and utter extension of his will as he was all powerful. INTO this universe he added a different dimension (i call this act creation because now the substance of reality changes), he created free will beings (not just human beings, but also beings that preceded us). . . .

i gotta go for a few minutes.

 

[Tom]

"If God says, "Go do this and you'll be saved", and we do it, God does have to keep up his end of the bargain. What's so complicated about that? "


Where does your God say that ? I thought He said-

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"

You are saying that a man can provide for his own salvation through his own deeds ?

"Not of works, lest any man should boast."

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: djplayx714
Here is one startling thing that Christians argue with me over. They tell me that Jesus Christ is God.

Now if I remembered the hierarchy correctly enough it was God and then his son Jesus, etc etc. So it didnt sound at all reasonable to me that the son of God is actually God. I actually by natural reaction thought "BLASPHEMY!". I dont really know if I'm right or wrong since there are so many contradictions and such in the general religion so any insight would be nice.

Although the Bible never actually says it, there's enough to understand that the god-head is three entities. The word for God, Elohim, (sp!?) is plural. The god-head consists of the father, son, and "holy spirit". So, yes, Christ was God... in a sense.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
because you think of sin as actions we have taken that we are responsible for. sin isn't an action it's a condition. because of adam and eve all humanity is left without the ability to communicate with god, separation from god IS sin, it's ONLY threw the renewal of the spirit that we are again able to communicate to god. again read john 3 again.

It was hard to have a rebutal to this one as I've never heard this argument before. So I found this verse:

ROM 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Sin is a verb, an action where we do something that isn't right with God. Please find a verse to backup that sin itself is a condition (I know "living in sin" is a condition)

I think he means to say that sinning is a condition: the human condition. It is man's nature to sin, therefore it is his condition.
Make more sense now?
Oh, and sin isn't seperation from G-d (although it is the cause of man's seperation from G-d), that's the literal definition of hell. Hell is defined as "the complete seperation from G-d and His Holy Spirit."

that's based on a premise, the premise that sin is disobedience to god's law. i just don't agree with that premise.

the traditional view of good vs evil is good = obedience to god and evil = obedience to satan (the devil). i just don't agree with those premises.

can you give me interpretation of the verse I quoted up there and how you can infer from that that sinning isn't an action and that action caused us to not be right with God?

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"If God says, "Go do this and you'll be saved", and we do it, God does have to keep up his end of the bargain. What's so complicated about that? "


Where does your God say that ? I thought He said-

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"

You are saying that a man can provide for his own salvation through his own deeds ?

"Not of works, lest any man should boast."

RE: Where does He say that?

I've already posted the verse in one of my other posts (in the first page of this thread).
Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So right there he says it.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"If God says, "Go do this and you'll be saved", and we do it, God does have to keep up his end of the bargain. What's so complicated about that? "


Where does your God say that ? I thought He said-

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"

You are saying that a man can provide for his own salvation through his own deeds ?

"Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Here's the problem with quoting individual Bible verses: the Bible is meant to be taken as one long, continuous work. To take just one verse out of context and ignore the rest is to view the Bible in a manner other than it was meant to be viewed. Salvation is a gift of G-d and cannot be earned, this is true. However, one has to understand *why* it cannot be earned. Man cannot earn salvation through G-d's perfect Law because man is not perfect himself. This is why it was necessary for G-d to give us Yeshua (Jesus) for our salvation.
It is through following Jesus' example and acceptance of G-d's free gift that we are saved. If a man does not emulate Jesus but claims to be saved, Jesus himself said that this man is not saved for a good tree can bear no bad fruits. Following G-d's Law is not a recommendation, but a *requirement* of salvation. Jesus followed the Law, and commands his followers to do the same. How, then, can one be saved without following the Law? You can't.
The Law of G-d was originally intended to be man's salvation, that is why it was given to the people. Unfortunately, man is incapable of saving himself, so we *need* G-d's free gift of forgiveness to receive salvation.
I could go on and on and on here but you get the gist of what I'm saying (I hope)

 

[Jzero]

It is my wife (Catholic remember) who is beginning to think that Catholics are not true Christians since she is using the latter definition. I myself don't know all the gritty details, but she seems to feel strongly about it.

I don't think it's fair, however, to paint all Catholics with the same brush anymore than it is fair to paint all people of any other religious affiliation with the same brush. I'm pretty religiously liberal, but my mother was raised Catholic and to this day she still finds a lot of comfort and peace in some of those rituals. Who am I to judge?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"If God says, "Go do this and you'll be saved", and we do it, God does have to keep up his end of the bargain. What's so complicated about that? "


Where does your God say that ? I thought He said-

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"

You are saying that a man can provide for his own salvation through his own deeds ?

"Not of works, lest any man should boast."

RE: Where does He say that?

I've already posted the verse in one of my other posts (in the first page of this thread).
Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So right there he says it.

Doesn't say "he that is baptized not shall be damned", though, does it??

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: djplayx714
Here is one startling thing that Christians argue with me over. They tell me that Jesus Christ is God.

Now if I remembered the hierarchy correctly enough it was God and then his son Jesus, etc etc. So it didnt sound at all reasonable to me that the son of God is actually God. I actually by natural reaction thought "BLASPHEMY!". I dont really know if I'm right or wrong since there are so many contradictions and such in the general religion so any insight would be nice.

Although the Bible never actually says it, there's enough to understand that the god-head is three entities. The word for God, Elohim, (sp!?) is plural. The god-head consists of the father, son, and "holy spirit". So, yes, Christ was God... in a sense.

Actually, Elohim means simply "the name(s)" referring to the holy name(s) of G-d.

 

[Tom]

"Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So right there he says it. "


No it doesn't. There are two things there, it says if you don't do one you'll be damned, but the one it says isn't baptism. So that statement alone does not say baptism is required.

It also doesn't define either term.

It also doesn't say that there is a cause and effect relationship, that salvation comes because a person does those things.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"If God says, "Go do this and you'll be saved", and we do it, God does have to keep up his end of the bargain. What's so complicated about that? "


Where does your God say that ? I thought He said-

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"

You are saying that a man can provide for his own salvation through his own deeds ?

"Not of works, lest any man should boast."

RE: Where does He say that?

I've already posted the verse in one of my other posts (in the first page of this thread).
Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So right there he says it.

Doesn't say "he that is baptized not shall be damned", though, does it??

Certainly it doesn't, but that doesn't negate what he told us to do to be saved.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So right there he says it. "


No it doesn't. There are two things there, it says if you don't do one you'll be damned, but the one it says isn't baptism. So that statement alone does not say baptism is required.

It also doesn't define either term.

It also doesn't say that there is a cause and effect relationship, that salvation comes because a person does those things.

You're confusing the word "and" with the word "or". And means both, or means either. Since "and" was used in this case, that means one is required to believe AND be baptized to receive salvation. Since this has already been established, it would be redundant to reiterate this in the very next sentence.

 

[Stojakapimp]

this is what happens when you practice sola scriptura

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So right there he says it. "


No it doesn't. There are two things there, it says if you don't do one you'll be damned, but the one it says isn't baptism. So that statement alone does not say baptism is required.

It also doesn't define either term.

It also doesn't say that there is a cause and effect relationship, that salvation comes because a person does those things.

You're confusing the word "and" with the word "or". And means both, or means either. Since "and" was used in this case, that means one is required to believe AND be baptized to receive salvation. Since this has already been established, it would be redundant to reiterate this in the very next sentence.

Ok...just making sure that God will damn someone to hell who, on their deathbed, is truly repentant but was never baptized.

Gotcha.

Wow...what a benevolent God.

 

[Tom]

"You're confusing the word "and" with the word "or". And means both, or means either. Since "and" was used in this case, that means one is required to believe AND be baptized to receive salvation. Since this has already been established, it would be redundant to reiterate this in the very next sentence."



That makes no sense. The first sentence does not exclude other ways of being saved, and the second only lists one reason for being damned.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So right there he says it. "


No it doesn't. There are two things there, it says if you don't do one you'll be damned, but the one it says isn't baptism. So that statement alone does not say baptism is required.

It also doesn't define either term.

It also doesn't say that there is a cause and effect relationship, that salvation comes because a person does those things.

Bolded for emphasis. That's an important part that a lot of people can't grasp. Of course, since they can't understand it they'll just ignore it.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So right there he says it. "

No it doesn't. There are two things there, it says if you don't do one you'll be damned, but the one it says isn't baptism. So that statement alone does not say baptism is required.

It also doesn't define either term.

It also doesn't say that there is a cause and effect relationship, that salvation comes because a person does those things.

Simplest of the simple. He told us that if we believe and are baptized we save be saved. Of course there is more to it then just that, but that is what the rest of the Bible is for (history, law, instruction, etc.).

To your argument that it doesn't say he that believeth not and isn't baptized shall be damned - I seriously doubt that every single thing that we can do to keep us from heaven would have to be listed there.

Another analogy (side note: I like to speak in analogies as I think it mimics Jesus teaching in parables)

Jane has a recipe.
It calls for sugar, flour, and eggs. She has to put all of these things in to get her desired result. The recipe doesn't say everything that should not be put in it however.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So right there he says it. "


No it doesn't. There are two things there, it says if you don't do one you'll be damned, but the one it says isn't baptism. So that statement alone does not say baptism is required.

It also doesn't define either term.

It also doesn't say that there is a cause and effect relationship, that salvation comes because a person does those things.

Bolded for emphasis. That's an important part that a lot of people can't grasp. Of course, since they can't understand it they'll just ignore it.

This goes along with my other post. Everything we need to know can't be in every spot of the Bible, that is why the whole Bible exists and builds off of itself. The two terms are defined in other places.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So right there he says it. "


No it doesn't. There are two things there, it says if you don't do one you'll be damned, but the one it says isn't baptism. So that statement alone does not say baptism is required.

It also doesn't define either term.

It also doesn't say that there is a cause and effect relationship, that salvation comes because a person does those things.

You're confusing the word "and" with the word "or". And means both, or means either. Since "and" was used in this case, that means one is required to believe AND be baptized to receive salvation. Since this has already been established, it would be redundant to reiterate this in the very next sentence.

Ok...just making sure that God will damn someone to hell who, on their deathbed, is truly repentant but was never baptized.

Gotcha.

Wow...what a benevolent God.

G-d is just. I trust His judgment before I'll trust yours. One thing you non-believers need to understand: G-d is righteous. If He were to ignore the unrighteousness of the world He would not be righteous. G-d cannot be a hypocrite, so He cannot let the sins of the wicked go unpunished. At the same time, He offers every man, woman, and child who has ever lived on this earth a chance for salvation. It is my contention that if someone is truly repentant of their sins and accepts G-d's free gift of salvation that G-d will weigh what is in their hearts and determine if they can receive said gift. You don't get to make that choice, nor do you know the results of what happens after someone dies in your deathbed scenario - you simply assume the worst.

 

[DougK62]

Dead Parrot Sketch, I think you're too smart for this discussion. These guys aren't up to your comprehension level.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: conjur

Ok...just making sure that God will damn someone to hell who, on their deathbed, is truly repentant but was never baptized.

Gotcha.

Wow...what a benevolent God.

G-d is just. I trust His judgment before I'll trust yours. One thing you non-believers need to understand: G-d is righteous. If He were to ignore the unrighteousness of the world He would not be righteous. G-d cannot be a hypocrite, so He cannot let the sins of the wicked go unpunished. At the same time, He offers every man, woman, and child who has ever lived on this earth a chance for salvation. It is my contention that if someone is truly repentant of their sins and accepts G-d's free gift of salvation that G-d will weigh what is in their hearts and determine if they can receive said gift. You don't get to make that choice, nor do you know the results of what happens after someone dies in your deathbed scenario - you simply assume the worst.

Ok...so baptism, then, is *not* a requirement.

Gotcha.