Church Expels Members Who Don't Support Bush [Archive]

MoMo

05-08-2005, 03:20 PM

From the Associated Press:
WAYNESVILLE, N.C., May 7 -- Some in Pastor Chan Chandler's flock wish he had a little less zeal for the GOP.
Members of the small East Waynesville Baptist Church say Chandler led an effort to kick out congregants who did not support President Bush. Nine members were voted out at a Monday church meeting in this mountain town about 120 miles west of Charlotte. Forty others in the 400-member congregation resigned in protest.
"He's the kind of pastor who says 'Do it my way or get out,' " said Selma Morris, the former church treasurer. "He's real negative all the time."
Chandler told WLOS-TV in Asheville on Friday that the actions were not politically motivated, but on Saturday he refused to comment, citing the advice of his attorney.
During the presidential election last year, Chandler told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Sen. John F. Kerry should leave the church or repent, former member Lorene Sutton said.
Some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum.
George Bullard, associate executive director-treasurer for Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, told the Asheville Citizen-Times that a pastor may disallow memberships if a church's bylaws allow the pastor to establish criteria for membership.
The head of the North Carolina Democratic Party sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church's tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president.

mzungu

05-08-2005, 05:02 PM

this is thoroughly in keeping with the self-righteous dogmatism of the southern republican movement.

Biscuit_AQ

05-08-2005, 05:26 PM

I'd say its more of an isolated incident, honestly.

TrackDaddy

05-08-2005, 05:53 PM

A Baptist church in Waynesville, North Carolina, has voted to expel nine members who did not support Bush. Afterward, 40 members resigned in protest.

Is this what we've come to?

You can't be a good Christian unless you support a chosen Republican politician?

What's next? The Republican Party expelling Unitarians (maybe a bad example: there probably aren't more than two Republican Unitarians)?Who said Baptists were good Christians?

Or Christians at all...for that matter.

Oh...yeah...they did.

Biscuit_AQ

05-08-2005, 06:39 PM

TD, I think that counts as picking a fight.

100% Ozone Safe

05-08-2005, 07:44 PM

Who said Baptists were good Christians?

Or Christians at all...for that matter.

Oh...yeah...they did.
What's your gripe with Baptists?

And what's your oppinion about Non-Denomonational Christians?

Jwaksman

05-08-2005, 07:44 PM

I'd say its more of an isolated incident, honestly.

No, that's not how it works. See, the way to be an intellectual is to find isolated examples of crazy hicks in the south and assume that everyone that disagrees with your political dogma is one of them...

TrackDaddy

05-08-2005, 08:36 PM

What's your gripe with Baptists?

And what's your oppinion about Non-Denomonational Christians?Baptists are just one part of a big problem.

Namely false doctrine.

As for non denominational Christianity...that's the only kind of Christianity there is. Although not all who call themselves non denominational really are.

When you study your Bible you see CLEARLY that: Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc., etc.,...blah, blah, blah...not only didn't exist and were never authorized by God...but those types of divisions based upon "the commandments of men"...were actually overwhelmingly condemned.

None of those Christian "faiths" (and others) are even mentioned in Bible.

They were all "made up" later by false prophets. Just check your encyclopedia for details.

Only the term "Christian" is used to identify "followers" of Christ in the Bible BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THAT GOD HAS ORDAINED.

Then, GREEDY, EVIL, LUSTFUL, POWER HUNGRY, MONEY GRUBBING, distorters of truth (men and women) came along (as the Bible said they would and still do) and made up all this other mumbo jumbo...mostly for profit.

NO ONE who followed Christ before or after His cruxifixion during Bible days were : Cathlolics, Baptists, Methodist, Jw's, Lutheran's, Presbyterians, etc...

I ask...were the Disciples or any of the churches MENTIONED in the Bible....Catholic or Methodist? Those man made religions and the things they do (nuns, cardinals, lent, pope, candles, robes, altar boys, painos, organs, etc) WERE NEVER HEARD OF, MUCH LESS PRACTICED BY FAITHFUL FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS.

Catholics claim Peter was the first "Pope."

LOL...Peter never even heard of such jibberish as Catholicism or any of this other mess. Besides... the Bible clearly indicates that he was married.

Denominational religion is so Biblically conflicting that it's absolutely amazing.

TrackDaddy

05-08-2005, 08:39 PM

TD, I think that counts as picking a fight.It wasn't intended to.

As you know, I'm committed to...

TRUTH!!! :D

Doesn't matter who likes it...or not. :cool:

100% Ozone Safe

05-08-2005, 09:11 PM

Baptists are just one part of a big problem.

Namely false doctrine.

As for non denominational Christianity...that's the only kind of Christianity there is. Although not all who call themselves non denominational really are.

When you study your Bible you see CLEARLY that: Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc., etc.,...blah, blah, blah...not only didn't exist and were never authorized by God...but those types of divisions based upon "the commandments of men"...were actually overwhelmingly condemned.

None of those Christian "faiths" (and others) are even mentioned in Bible.

They were all "made up" later by false prophets. Just check your encyclopedia for details.

Only the term "Christian" is used to identify "followers" of Christ in the Bible BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THAT GOD HAS ORDAINED.

Then, GREEDY, EVIL, LUSTFUL, POWER HUNGRY, MONEY GRUBBING, distorters of truth (men and women) came along (as the Bible said they would and still do) and made up all this other mumbo jumbo...mostly for profit.

NO ONE who followed Christ before or after His cruxifixion during Bible days were : Cathlolics, Baptists, Methodist, Jw's, Lutheran's, Presbyterians, etc...

I ask...were the Disciples or any of the churches MENTIONED in the Bible....Catholic or Methodist? Those man made religions and the things they do (nuns, cardinals, lent, pope, candles, robes, altar boys, painos, organs, etc) WERE NEVER HEARD OF, MUCH LESS PRACTICED BY FAITHFUL FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS.

Catholics claim Peter was the first "Pope."

LOL...Peter never even heard of such jibberish as Catholicism or any of this other mess. Besides... the Bible clearly indicates that he was married.

Denominational religion is so Biblically conflicting that it's absolutely amazing.

I realize that no denominations were named in the bible. But what beleifs are there that are incorrect in the churches of Lutheran/Catholic/other stuff...? I was raised a Lutheran, what are some of the things I may have learned in my Lutheran Church which conflict with your beleifs? I truly am interested in this.

luv2run

05-08-2005, 09:21 PM

It wasn't intended to [pick a fight]. ???

What if I said, "Who ever said Christians are good/decent/honest people?"

Is that picking a fight?

NJ5k

05-08-2005, 10:57 PM

TI83

05-08-2005, 11:29 PM

back to the topic...some justification for this pastor's actions could be that he sees John Kerry as a sinner who would put in place non-christian practices like abortion/gay marriage into effect if he became president...

that said i think what he did was wrong and those who were expelled should switch churches(not that they have a choice)

TrackDaddy

05-09-2005, 12:51 AM

Denominations weren't mentioned in the Bible because they came about millenia later during the Reformation. People were fed up with the Church (and this is overlooking the Great Schism where the split came between Eastern Orthodox/Roman Catholicism).Church?

People were fed up with the people who CALLED themselves "the Church" and who, by the way...still do.

But...they aren't.

Certainly not "the Church" that Jesus is the HEAD of and the one that the Apostles described and instructed on how to worship Him.

This "self proclaimed" Church...just made up some stuff foriegn to scripture and ran with it.

As for the Lutherans...I think Martin Luther's intentions were good for the most part. I believe he even asked those among him not to name themselves after him. But they did anyway after he died.

Of course, according to scripture...the Church belongs to Christ. He died for it. He is the head of the body, the Church. Those in His Church are known as Christians. Only.

If I named a Church after me (Church TrackDaddy) or some other neat name I came up with,
decided that I would make up based on what I liked, how we would worship God (ignoring His instructions),
and then told you that God wouldn't mind since He allegedly told me it was okay with Him (but His Word said differently)...

Would you come?

Would you then not bother to learn for yourself through study what God says, but just let me tell you what to do and when to do it?

Even though God dictates how He is to worshiped and I had no scriptural authority for what I told you to do?

And then give me your money?

No matter how rich I got?

Would you call me Holy Father (even though the JESUS SPECIFICALLY FORBID IT) if I wore a Big Hat, a fancy robe and carried a stick?

If so...I have some land for sale for you in the swamps on the coast of Florida... ;)

TrackDaddy

05-09-2005, 12:56 AM

???

What if I said, "Who ever said Christians are good/decent/honest people?"

Is that picking a fight?Not with me.

Of course...I know the TRUTH.

Ostracism and ridicule is the temporal destiny of the SCRIPTURAL Christian.

But I do agree that's COMPLETELY different than me saying it about Baptists. ;)

gesser

05-09-2005, 01:12 AM

UpstateRunner

05-09-2005, 01:40 AM

For all the good religion does, it sure knows how to incense people and make them look like effing idiots. Chan Chandler is a joke. I don't even know what to say. Chandler might possibly be mentally retarded and should have that checked into.

This is exactly the attitude that causes the red state/blue state split. Liberals/democrats don't understand and don't try to understand where conservatives/republicans get some of their gripes. This goes the other way as well. The country will continue to be split until everyone can look at the lifestyles and political choices of others and at least try to understand without judging where those choices came from.

That said, I think Chan Chandler is extremely guilty of this, as is everyone else who decided that he was a joke or a statistical fluke. For those who think religion is rubbish, you cannot ignore it as a social/political force. For those who are religious, please for once follow your own religion and do not judge others... as the bible says.

gesser

05-09-2005, 01:50 AM

This is exactly the attitude that causes the red state/blue state split. Liberals/democrats don't understand and don't try to understand where conservatives/republicans get some of their gripes. This goes the other way as well. The country will continue to be split until everyone can look at the lifestyles and political choices of others and at least try to understand without judging where those choices came from.

That said, I think Chan Chandler is extremely guilty of this, as is everyone else who decided that he was a joke or a statistical fluke. For those who think religion is rubbish, you cannot ignore it as a social/political force. For those who are religious, please for once follow your own religion and do not judge others... as the bible says.

Whoa nellie...you're putting big time words into my mouth. If you're implying I think religion is rubbish you're crazy. And how you deciphered that from my statement, you're nuts. Read it again:

For all the good religion does, it sure knows how to incense people and make them look like effing idiots.

That a pretty non-biased and obvious observation. Religion makes people look stupid some times and has caused numerous stupid battles and wars. If you want examples I can provide them.

And don't be so freaking didactic and preachy by saying don't judge others. That's so stupid to say. Call me secularized, but I find it hard to believe even more of the devout Christians in this country have never prejudged or judged another.

UpstateRunner

05-09-2005, 02:57 AM

Whoa nellie...you're putting big time words into my mouth. If you're implying I think religion is rubbish you're crazy. And how you deciphered that from my statement, you're nuts. Read it again:

For all the good religion does, it sure knows how to incense people and make them look like effing idiots.

That a pretty non-biased and obvious observation. Religion makes people look stupid some times and has caused numerous stupid battles and wars. If you want examples I can provide them.

And don't be so freaking didactic and preachy by saying don't judge others. That's so stupid to say. Call me secularized, but I find it hard to believe even more of the devout Christians in this country have never prejudged or judged another.

You completely misunderstand me. First, none of this was directed at your post, merely using it as an example of a general trend in behavior that I have noticed. Second, I by no means meant to imply that you thought religion is rubbish, i was only pointing out two ends of the spectrum. Third, if anyone wants to be called secularized, it is me. I believe in no religion as (imo) religion only leads to conflict. By the non-judgemental line I was if anything taking a stab at the conservative christians for not putting into practice what they preach.

The point i was trying to make is that both sides fail to even try to understand the other, and that is where the divide in the country is coming from.

jersey_guy

05-09-2005, 03:12 AM

Nine members were voted out at a Monday church meeting in this mountain town about 120 miles west of Charlotte.

If this is correct, they were removed through democratic process, so it's their decision as to whom they perceive as worthy of their membership and not anybody's on this board.

jrun

05-09-2005, 03:22 AM

The idea of being voted out (or into) a church is not only laughable, but more importantly, horribly errant.

gesser

05-09-2005, 10:48 AM

You completely misunderstand me. First, none of this was directed at your post, merely using it as an example of a general trend in behavior that I have noticed. Second, I by no means meant to imply that you thought religion is rubbish, i was only pointing out two ends of the spectrum. Third, if anyone wants to be called secularized, it is me. I believe in no religion as (imo) religion only leads to conflict. By the non-judgemental line I was if anything taking a stab at the conservative christians for not putting into practice what they preach.

The point i was trying to make is that both sides fail to even try to understand the other, and that is where the divide in the country is coming from.

Disregard what I said then. Sorry, I thought it was directed at me.

xcrider

05-09-2005, 11:06 AM

Have to agree with TrackDaddy on this issue, the church was established around what A.D. 33 or so. Within 75 to 100 years after that if not sooner men started to change what the plan was. The church written about is not a denomination. I think that is one thing that turns people off of religion. So many ideas out there that people have come up with because they have a better way than God does. People can believe what they want, they have that choice. But that does not mean God will accept it. My advice, if you believe in God, study the Bible and see what the meaning, purpose, and design of the church is. Don't take my word, your "pastor's"(another misused term that actually means bishop, shepherd, or elder with specific qualifications given in Titus and Timothy), or anyone else. I would be afraid of stirring up something, but I think that has already happened.

As for topic, I would say jrun has it close to the mark, Probably what Kerry supports( abortion, gay civil unions and such) that go against biblical teaching. Not saying I agree with what they did, but then I don't agree with a lot of things people who call themselves Baptists do.

KenA55

05-09-2005, 11:17 AM

If they're voting people out of the congregation there, it may be some sort of social club, but a church it is not. Not of the Christian variety certainly. Christ reportedly went well out of his way to welcome those who may have been socially unpopular.

exjersey1

05-09-2005, 12:17 PM

xcrider

05-09-2005, 12:21 PM

[QUOTE=xcrider]Have to agree with TrackDaddy on this issue, the church was established around what A.D. 33 or so. Within 75 to 100 years after that if not sooner men started to change what the plan was. QUOTE]

A church was established or the basic religion was established?

The Lord's church. Matt 16:18 The kingdom, the church, the body of Christ. Which ever term you want to use refer to one church, one body, and Christ as the head. That is what the Bible teaches. Most of what we have today has nothing to do with what the Bible actually teaches by commandment and example.

Biscuit_AQ

05-09-2005, 01:37 PM

I'm sure jesus never intended for his church to evolve and change.

xcrider

05-09-2005, 01:55 PM

I'm sure jesus never intended for his church to evolve and change.

Not according to what he taught anyway. I'll take that as a sarcastic response(sorry if I misread it). What has changed since the time of Christ? Sin? Hardly, nothing is being committed today that wasn't being done in the 1st century or during O.T. times. God? If you believe in God, he doesn't change. Man? No only what man wants from a church. Entertainment, grand surroundings, a great choir or musical cast. Acceptance of what ever you want to do. Those who try to stick to the principles taught in the bible are usually cast as fanatics( possibly this guy that got people voted out). Of course from what I understand the Lord adds you to the church, not a vote acts2:47

.

100% Ozone Safe

05-09-2005, 03:37 PM

TDaddy, what is there that i was taught while being raised as a Lutheran that is incorrect? What does my church do incorrectly according to the bible?

MoMo

05-09-2005, 04:08 PM

If you ask TDiddy a question like that, you'd be wise to phrase it, "according to YOUR VIEW of the Bible."

running high

05-09-2005, 05:18 PM

X.C.S

The only problem I have with the Lutheran Church is that they baptise infants, which isn't Biblical.

Whatever, no biggie, I still think other denominations are going to Heaven.

But the Catholics have some off-target thinking.
The pope, praying to Mary, communion(their way), pergatory(?), other traditions I don't believe in.

jrun

05-09-2005, 05:46 PM

Anybody remember a few years back when Catholic leaders said that all other denominations would go to hell and that parishioners were not allowed to attend other churches? Remember when kids would go to hell for eating meat on Fridays? Remember when you could buy your way out of hell?

Those kidders....

MoMo

05-09-2005, 05:49 PM

jrun

05-09-2005, 05:50 PM

Don't they all ultimately have the same goal(s) in mind?

No.

Kalaby

05-09-2005, 06:20 PM

Biscuit_AQ

05-09-2005, 06:22 PM

jokes on them anyway, what with there being no god and all.

BudE 84

05-09-2005, 06:46 PM

These my-church-is-better-than-your-church arguments don't do much for me.

Is that REALLY what religion is about -- some sort of competition? Don't they all ultimately have the same goal(s) in mind?

And, finally, how are we humble and puny little humans supposed to know which one is "better" or "holier" or "more right"? All we can do is make our own individual judgments.

Agree with you a lot here. I am a Catholic, but I believe when it comes to getting to heaven your choice of religion (or lack thereof) is infinitely outweighed by your behavior in being the best person that one can. I also have to agree with Kalaby that it is awfully rediculous the amount that Catholics have to put up with attacks on their religion by other Christian groups as they do. If your beliefs disagree then fine that's great, but you don't need to attack other people's beliefs. I understand also that that type of thing goes both ways, but in my experience there is no arguing that I've seen Catholics on the receiving end of the attacks more than I've seen Catholics attacking other Christian religions, by far.

jrun

05-09-2005, 07:38 PM

It's pretty interesting how some "Christians" take pot shots at Catholicism. They bemoan the fact that Christianity is attacked by other religions and/or the non-religious, yet they find it perfectly acceptable to go into attack mode when it comes to Catholicism. No irony there. :rolleyes:

Pot shots or pointing out errant doctrine? Certainly the apostle Paul had no problem getting "Christians" straight on the one and only Gospel message.

And I have no problems with attacks as we are not to be pleasers of men.

Kalaby

05-09-2005, 07:47 PM

Pot shots or pointing out errant doctrine? Certainly the apostle Paul had no problem getting "Christians" straight on the one and only Gospel message.

And I have no problems with attacks as we are not to be pleasers of men.

Errant doctrine to YOU. So yes, in this case it constitutes a pot shot IN MY VIEW as a Catholic.

Biscuit_AQ

05-09-2005, 07:50 PM

hasn't he made it clear that he doesn't care about your views?

Kalaby

05-09-2005, 07:52 PM

Not really. Don't really care about his nor yours for that matter.

KenA55

05-09-2005, 07:59 PM

TrackDaddy

05-09-2005, 08:16 PM

TDaddy, what is there that i was taught while being raised as a Lutheran that is incorrect? What does my church do incorrectly according to the bible?For one thing...The Catholic and Lutheran church openly teaches that newborns that die without being baptized will go to hell.

The TRUTH is that Jesus said..."Whoever BELIEVES and is baptized will be saved."

How can a baby believe?

Peter taught "REPENT and be baptized for the remission of your sins"

How can a baby repent?

Paul taught "confess with your mouth and believe in your heart and you will be saved."

Babies can't talk and don't understand.

Christianity is a personal choice. It's for whosoever will...let him/her come.

Babies have to grow up and make the choice for themselves...you can't MAKE anyone be a Christian. It's a choice based on BELIEVE, REPENTANCE BAPTISM, and a PENITENT LIFE.

None of which a baby is capable of much less required to do.

Baptizing babies is false doctrine. And sprinkling is just more false doctrine.

The Bible requires immersion. Clearly.

TrackDaddy

05-09-2005, 08:19 PM

If you ask TDiddy a question like that, you'd be wise to phrase it, "according to YOUR VIEW of the Bible."The Bible is clear.

The world is muddied.

mzungu

05-09-2005, 08:20 PM

For one thing...The Catholic and Lutheran church openly teaches that newborns that die without being baptized will go to hell.

The TRUTH is that Jesus said..."Whoever BELIEVES and is baptized will be saved."

How can a baby believe?

Peter taught "REPENT and be baptized for the remission of your sins"

How can a baby repent?

Paul taught "confess with your mouth and believe in your heart and you will be saved."

Babies can't talk and don't understand.

Christianity is a personal choice. It's for whosoever will...let him/her come.

Babies have to grow up and make the choice for themselves...you can't MAKE anyone be a Christian. It's a choice based on BELIEVE, REPENTANCE BAPTISM, and a PENITENT LIFE.

None of which a baby is capable of much less required to do.

Baptizing babies is false doctrine. And sprinkling is just more false doctrine.

The Bible requires immersion. Clearly.

It shows great courage, TD, for you to openly declare that Jesus Christ and Paul were heretics.

100% Ozone Safe

05-09-2005, 08:24 PM

For one thing...The Catholic and Lutheran church openly teaches that newborns that die without being baptized will go to hell.
Maybe you are mistaken, but at my church, I've asked this question directly to my pastor, asking "what about babies that die before baptism?" His response was the opposite of what you just said. I'm shady on the memory, but it went something like "Babies are very pure since they have almost no sin, and get to go to heaven."

On the topic of the false doctrine in my church baptizing infants before they have an opportunity to decide what they beleive or not... you may be right, i have no clue.

jrun

05-09-2005, 08:25 PM

Errant doctrine? Whatever. Nice to know there are so many who've got it exclusively right, despite their inability to agree with everybody else who's got it exclusively right. Ever occur to you guys of all denominations that this sort of worldly warfare over doctrine is a standing joke once you check out of here? Human foolishness raised to an exponential power.

In the end, there's a right and there's a wrong. I would try my hardest to be on the right side, which is contrary to 'human wisdom.'

TrackDaddy's signature comes in handy in this situation.

luv2run

05-09-2005, 08:27 PM

The TRUTH is that Jesus said..."Whoever BELIEVES and is baptized will be saved."

How can a baby believe?

Peter taught "REPENT and be baptized for the remission of your sins"

How can a baby repent?

Paul taught "confess with your mouth and believe in your heart and you will be saved."

Babies can't talk and don't understand.

[..]

None of which a baby is capable of much less required to do.Wait a second ... a baby isn't required to do these things? Where does it say that?

Under a literal interpretation, don't you clearly quote that to be saved you must believe and be baptized, among other things?

I see no mention of exceptions for babies, or for that matter the mentally challenged or those who have never been taught Christianity. Clarification ... ?

TrackDaddy

05-09-2005, 08:33 PM

These my-church-is-better-than-your-church arguments don't do much for me.

Is that REALLY what religion is about -- some sort of competition? Don't they all ultimately have the same goal(s) in mind?

And, finally, how are we humble and puny little humans supposed to know which one is "better" or "holier" or "more right"? All we can do is make our own individual judgments.LOL

Wasted space.

For all your intellect, I'm consistently amazed at how you fail to understand this.

Can I be an astronaut just because I say I am?

Can I write my own rules to become one?

My goal is the same as theirs...why not?

The TRUTH is that..."there is a way that seems right to a man but in the end it leads to death."

Christ only established ONE church.

ONE.

The Bible CLEARLY speaks of all the FALSE doctrine that would follow. People "making things up" allegedly in His name.

Who has the right to start THEIR OWN church (with their own doctrine) in His name?

Now you're getting it...no one.

Because He is Lord...HE DICTATES through scripture how he is to be served.

Not the Pope.

In fact Jesus said.... "IN VAIN...they do worship me...TEACHING AS COMMANDMENTS, THE DOCTRINE OF MEN."

So they're worshiping all right...it just that because it's THEIR will and NOT HIS...it's in vain.

To know HOW to SERVE HIM one only needs....a Bible, and someone to show them what's plainly there.

All that other supposedly christian stuff is just mumbo jumbo.

TrackDaddy

05-09-2005, 08:39 PM

Wait a second ... a baby isn't required to do these things? Where does it say that?

Under a literal interpretation, don't you clearly quote that to be saved you must believe and be baptized, among other things?

I see no mention of exceptions for babies, or for that matter the mentally challenged or those who have never been taught Christianity. Clarification ... ?This is very easy to understand.

How can a baby believe when they can't even understand?

They can't talk nor can they be talked to.

Can you get a baby to understand?

Did you read my post?

Baptism REQUIRES BELIEF, CONFESSION AND REPENTANCE.

Babies can't do either.

Baptizing someone who doesn't understand, can't confess, and don't yet have any sins to repent from is...

Just getting them wet.

TrackDaddy

05-09-2005, 08:42 PM

It shows great courage, TD, for you to openly declare that Jesus Christ and Paul were heretics.The term heretic did not even exist when they lived.

Since the false doctrine of catholicism hadn't yet been scammed up.

Although they certainly condemned it and false doctrines like it philosophically.

TrackDaddy

05-09-2005, 08:47 PM

Errant doctrine? Whatever. Nice to know there are so many who've got it exclusively right, despite their inability to agree with everybody else who's got it exclusively right. Ever occur to you guys of all denominations that this sort of worldly warfare over doctrine is a standing joke once you check out of here? Human foolishness raised to an exponential power.You're wrong.

At the very least.

Paul told Timothy to "watch you doctrine CLOSELY, in by doing so you will SAVE both you and your followers."

Biscuit_AQ

05-09-2005, 08:47 PM

Christ would not care about sprinkling versus immersion. To honestly think that sort of technicality would matter to a supreme being makes me laugh.

luv2run

05-09-2005, 08:47 PM

This is very easy to understand.

How can a baby believe when they can't even understand?

They can't talk nor can they be talked to.

Can you get a baby to understand?

Did you read my post?

Baptism REQUIRES BELIEF, CONFESSION AND REPENTANCE.

Babies can't do either.

Baptizing someone who doesn't understand, can't confess, and don't yet have any sins to repent from is...

Just getting them wet.I see. I just find it interesting that you said, "The Catholic and Lutheran church openly teaches that newborns that die without being baptized will go to hell."

Then you seemed to agree with those churches by saying: a) to be saved you must be baptized and b) babies cannot be baptized. Therefore it would follow that babies cannot be saved.

I don't think that is what you meant to say; thus, my confusion.

P.S. I'm thinking this is probably a red herring regarding this thread. I'll drop the issue after this post, but I just didn't see where you were coming from. I don't yet see the TRUTH ... ;)

P.P.S. I don't really like those smilies very much. Except the one in shades.

TrackDaddy

05-09-2005, 09:02 PM

Errant doctrine to YOU. So yes, in this case it constitutes a pot shot IN MY VIEW as a Catholic.this not meant to be personal Kalaby.

I've never met a Catholic who had full confidence in what he/she was doing religiously.

Mostly because it doesn't make sense...even to them.

Are you different?

Being a Christian doesn't require a pope, a nun, cardinals, robes, candles, big hats, worship of Mary, altar boys, priests, big buildings that look "religious", blah, blah blah,....

Catholicism is among the easiest false doctrines to identify.

It's clearly ..."not Biblical."

In fact, there are things that Jesus said not to do (condemned) that it appears catholics may have read and then decided they would do anyway.

Kalaby

05-09-2005, 09:26 PM

this not meant to be personal Kalaby.

I've never met a Catholic who had full confidence in what he/she was doing religiously.

Mostly because it doesn't make sense...even to them.

Are you different?

Being a Christian doesn't require a pope, a nun, cardinals, robes, candles, big hats, worship of Mary, altar boys, priests, big buildings that look "religious", blah, blah blah,....

Catholicism is among the easiest false doctrines to identify.

It's clearly ..."not Biblical."

In fact, there are things that Jesus said not to do (condemned) that it appears catholics may have read and then decided they would do anyway.

I am fully confident in my religious beliefs and how they are part of the Catholic Church. So now you can say that you've found a Catholic that does exhibit those traits. Another stereotype debunked.

It's interesting that some fundamentalist Christians like yourself who steadfastly believe in such nonsense as a 6,000 year old Earth are the experts on exposing false doctrines and misinterpretations of religion. That is the ultimate measure of hubris and irony. We've been down this road before, no need for a rerun, because I'm not playing this game. Please don't address me any longer on this thread because I'll have you on Ignore for at least the time being. You really need to update your routine because your antics are growing quite old.

100% Ozone Safe

05-09-2005, 09:47 PM

I am fully confident in my religious beliefs and how they are part of the Catholic Church. So now you can say that you've found a Catholic that does exhibit those traits. Another stereotype debunked.

It's interesting that some fundamentalist Christians like yourself who steadfastly believe in such nonsense as a 6,000 year old Earth are the experts on exposing false doctrines and misinterpretations of religion. That is the ultimate measure of hubris and irony. We've been down this road before, no need for a rerun, because I'm not playing this game. Please don't address me any longer on this thread because I'll have you on Ignore for at least the time being. You really need to update your routine because your antics are growing quite old.
o snap!

edit: im sorry, i forgot this was the LL. I'll remember to bring my maturity next time i post... :o

running high

05-09-2005, 10:09 PM

Um, simply to clarify: I didn't mean to insult anyone or 'attack' the Catholic Church. I just don't agree with the things they do. Kay? Cool.

UpstateRunner

05-09-2005, 10:13 PM

Christ would not care about sprinkling versus immersion. To honestly think that sort of technicality would matter to a supreme being makes me laugh.

I agree strongly with this. The idea that god would care about the precise details as long as you lived a good life, worshiped god, and were a generally good person is ludicrous. A supreme being who is as loving and caring as god is professed to be would not be the nit-picky college professor with rulers measuring the margins on students papers and failing them if they were a tenth of an inch off. I don't believe any religious doctrine, christian or otherwise, but I believe that there could well be a supreme being and I live my life in a way that should I be judged for my actions some day I will have lived a just life. I fail to see how whether water sprinkled over my head makes any difference in this.

running high

05-09-2005, 10:25 PM

I agree strongly with this. The idea that god would care about the precise details as long as you lived a good life, worshiped god, and were a generally good person is ludicrous. A supreme being who is as loving and caring as god is professed to be would not be the nit-picky college professor with rulers measuring the margins on students papers and failing them if they were a tenth of an inch off. I don't believe any religious doctrine, christian or otherwise, but I believe that there could well be a supreme being and I live my life in a way that should I be judged for my actions some day I will have lived a just life. I fail to see how whether water sprinkled over my head makes any difference in this.

In regards to if a Christian would think this I would say....

"For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast."
Eph 2:8,9

This is another principle that I believe has been lost in the Church in places. Being a 'good person' and living 'generally a good life' is not any part of recieving salvation. That might not have been what you are saying, but on topic none the less.

UpstateRunner

05-09-2005, 10:28 PM

In regards to if a Christian would think this I would say....

"For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast."
Eph 2:8,9

This is another principle that I believe has been lost in the Church in places. Being a 'good person' and living 'generally a good life' is not any part of recieving salvation. That might not have been what you are saying, but on topic none the less.

That about sums it up.

It would be nice if the literalists would worry about the plank in their own eye rather that worry about how everyone else choses to worship.

running high

05-09-2005, 11:15 PM

Meh, was on topic; I'm not perfect.

TrackDaddy

05-10-2005, 02:57 AM

I am fully confident in my religious beliefs and how they are part of the Catholic Church. So now you can say that you've found a Catholic that does exhibit those traits. Another stereotype debunked.

It's interesting that some fundamentalist Christians like yourself who steadfastly believe in such nonsense as a 6,000 year old Earth are the experts on exposing false doctrines and misinterpretations of religion. That is the ultimate measure of hubris and irony. We've been down this road before, no need for a rerun, because I'm not playing this game. Please don't address me any longer on this thread because I'll have you on Ignore for at least the time being. You really need to update your routine because your antics are growing quite old.LOL

Alright then, player.

Ignore THE TRUTH.

At least you're consistent.

Since ignoring the truth is the essence of catholicism.

TrackDaddy

05-10-2005, 03:09 AM

That about sums it up.

It would be nice if the literalists would worry about the plank in their own eye rather that worry about how everyone else choses to worship.How ironic.

This kind of foolish thinking is where all the false doctrine comes from.

Christians don't get to choose "how" we worship.

God gave explicit instructions on that.

Biscuit_AQ

05-10-2005, 10:16 AM

so you believe.

running high

05-10-2005, 10:18 AM

so you believe.

So you believe in relative truth? Do you believe there are matters in which God has no opinion?

Biscuit_AQ

05-10-2005, 10:27 AM

I don't believe in god at all.

I suppose I do believe in relative truth, though you might help me out by saying what you're getting at here.

running high

05-10-2005, 10:49 AM

I don't believe in god at all.

I suppose I do believe in relative truth, though you might help me out by saying what you're getting at here.

Well, you said "so you believe" which is the view of a relativist. Basically, "What's true for you isn't always true for me," is the thinking.

But at least you're consistant, if you believe in God you should believe in absolute truth. If you don't believe in God, then there can't be objective truth because no one is setting the standards(or the truth).

I could go on for awhile about it, but that's the foundation of the debate.

Edit: did you used to be biscuit KC, if so, why did you change the name?

UpstateRunner

05-10-2005, 10:49 AM

So you believe in relative truth? Do you believe there are matters in which God has no opinion?

Do you think that if you were an almighty being who loved and cared for his creations that you would care about crossing the t's and dotting the i's? I think that intention to serve is far more important than literal doctrine. As an almighty being who would you rather have in heaven, a good person with good intentions who might have missed a little as far as doctrine, or someone who followed the book to the letter but lacked the good intentions. Jesus chastised the pharasees (sp) for doing just that.

running high

05-10-2005, 10:57 AM

Do you think that if you were an almighty being who loved and cared for his creations that you would care about crossing the t's and dotting the i's? I think that intention to serve is far more important than literal doctrine. As an almighty being who would you rather have in heaven, a good person with good intentions who might have missed a little as far as doctrine, or someone who followed the book to the letter but lacked the good intentions. Jesus chastised the pharasees (sp) for doing just that.

This isn't such a small issue. The issue is one that divides Christians from Muslims, that's no fine line. You must believe and have faith to get to Heaven. Life isn't a video game where we try to set the high score for good works.

But I do agree, as I said earlier, there are smaller, insignificant discrepancies. Such as Lutherans baptising infants.

TrackDaddy

05-10-2005, 11:06 AM

Do you think that if you were an almighty being who loved and cared for his creations that you would care about crossing the t's and dotting the i's? I think that intention to serve is far more important than literal doctrine. As an almighty being who would you rather have in heaven, a good person with good intentions who might have missed a little as far as doctrine, or someone who followed the book to the letter but lacked the good intentions. Jesus chastised the pharasees (sp) for doing just that.You need to read my signature.

Jesus chastised the Pharisees for being hypocrites.

Not for following doctrine.

And why does God have to choose between someone who obeys and someone with good intentions?

Why can't they do both?

DOCTRINE is very important...

Paul told Timothy to

"watch your doctrine CLOSELY, in by doing so you will SAVE both you and your followers."

And Jesus said.... "IN VAIN...they do worship me...TEACHING AS COMMANDMENTS, THE DOCTRINE OF MEN."

Doctrine is never insignificant.

It is God who decides how He is to be worshiped.

Not you or what YOU think is important.

When did He ask you?

UpstateRunner

05-10-2005, 11:15 AM

You need to read my signature.

Jesus chastised the Pharisees for being hypocrites.

Not for following doctrine.

And why does God have to choose between someone who obeys and someone with good intentions?

Why can't they do both?

DOCTRINE is very important...

Paul told Timothy to

"watch your doctrine CLOSELY, in by doing so you will SAVE both you and your followers."

And Jesus said.... "IN VAIN...they do worship me...TEACHING AS COMMANDMENTS, THE DOCTRINE OF MEN."

Doctrine is never insignificant.

It is God who decides how He is to be worshiped.

Not you or what YOU think is important.

When did He ask you?

TD, I wont change my mind and I know you wont either, however I find it hard to believe that a god as loving and caring as I am taught that he is would send me to hell for minor doctinal errors so long as I live my life as a good person.

MoMo

05-10-2005, 12:01 PM

Whatever happened to the original theme of the thread -- the unfortunate junction of politics and religion???

running high

05-10-2005, 12:07 PM

It's not that bad, look at what happened to the North Korea thread :D

KenA55

05-10-2005, 12:22 PM

MoMo

05-10-2005, 01:31 PM

Halleleujah!

Finally, some words of wisdom.

xcrider

05-10-2005, 01:54 PM

Christ would not care about sprinkling versus immersion. To honestly think that sort of technicality would matter to a supreme being makes me laugh.

Yeah just ask Nadab and Abihu, the sons of AaRon

xcrider

05-10-2005, 01:57 PM

That about sums it up.

It would be nice if the literalists would worry about the plank in their own eye rather that worry about how everyone else choses to worship.

If you believe in something, would you not try and teach it to others?

xcrider

05-10-2005, 02:07 PM

Don't know but I will say this. To me, faith(if you are a Christian) must be based on the Bible. This is the only source of knowledge about God(for Christians). Accepting that, ALL that is contained in that book is important. I would encourage everyone, not just to listen to TrackDaddy's comments(although I haven't seen anything I disagree with yet), or mine, or anyone else, but to study the word for yourself. Yes, there are a lot of beliefs out there, but that is not what is taught in the scriptures. Test yourself. I like these discussions, because I feel I need to consider daily what I believe, and practice and see if it is consistent with the Bible. Yes, our everyday lives and what we do outside the worship service is so important, but so are these other things. Matt 7:21-23 says many will believe they are God's children, but will be mistaken. Also, I like to see scriptures in discussions.

jake

05-10-2005, 02:25 PM

For one thing...The Catholic and Lutheran church openly teaches that newborns that die without being baptized will go to hell.

If this is openly taught by the Catholic Church, please show me where. Good luck.

jake

05-10-2005, 02:49 PM

Anybody remember a few years back when Catholic leaders said that all other denominations would go to hell

You're misreading the document.

xcrider

05-10-2005, 03:15 PM

If this is openly taught by the Catholic Church, please show me where. Good luck.
Why is it done? Seriously wanting to know.

jake

05-10-2005, 03:47 PM

Why is it done? Seriously wanting to know.

Here are some links to why the Catholic church baptizes infants.

http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=18

http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

My intent wasn't to start another huge doctrinal debate, but only to reply to TrackDaddy's statement about church teaching on non-baptized infants going to hell, which is competely inaccurate.

100% Ozone Safe

05-10-2005, 03:48 PM

"TrackDaddy
For one thing...The Catholic and Lutheran church openly teaches that newborns that die without being baptized will go to hell."

For the guy who was just asking about this ^statement^. This is incorrect, not true at all. I got my mom to ask my pastor this question again to him last night. His response was "whoever told (my name) that, is ridiculous. Whoever told him that should look into the ways in the lutheran church...blah blah blah" I stopped listening to my mom after she gave me the answer that i expected to get. Babies who die, that are not baptized are NOT destined for hell.

The catholic church may be different, but i doubt it.

xcrider

05-10-2005, 04:17 PM

Here are some links to why the Catholic church baptizes infants.

http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=18

http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

My intent wasn't to start another huge doctrinal debate, but only to reply to TrackDaddy's statement about church teaching on non-baptized infants going to hell, which is competely inaccurate.

Thanks, doesn't seem to come right out and say it, but seems to be inferred here that is anyone, infants included who are not baptized, would then be in an unsaved condition. At least I can see where TrackDaddy or someone else would get that idea.

Biscuit_AQ

05-10-2005, 04:42 PM

Yes, I was biscuit_KC, KC was the abbreviation for my high school, AQ is the abbreviation for my college.

xcrider, you make a kind of point, but perhaps you ought to hold trackdaddy responsible for his own (dramatic) misunderstanding of catholicism.

Also, I'd say anyone who was a true christian might take with a grain of salt a book written about god by mortal men (and rewritten, and translated, and rewritten, and translated)

Do you think trackdaddy can read the original hebrew, or even the original new testament? Has he tried, or is he nice and comfy with his umpteen times translated and rewritten english language bible.

jake

05-10-2005, 04:49 PM

Thanks, doesn't seem to come right out and say it, but seems to be inferred here that is anyone, infants included who are not baptized, would then be in an unsaved condition. At least I can see where TrackDaddy or someone else would get that idea.

Here are some paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that discuss these issues. No where will you find any teaching that states a non-baptized infant will go to hell.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

xcrider

05-11-2005, 10:43 AM

I see the point here. Not that they are teaching they will go to hell, but that they should be baptized, and if not, it is left to the mercy of God. I think that is what is being said(Do not want to misrepresent). I see and agree that baptism is necessary. I just don't see how anyone can teach an infant or small child is sinful. Christ taught that we must humble ourselves as little children. I think there is a point in each child's life where they become accountable for their sins. Different with each individual, then through belief, and obedience to God's commands (faith, repentance, confession, baptism)=salvation. This is my take, not trying to force it on anyone.

What I would take issue with is the idea that God will not hold us accountable. Yes God is far greater than anything we can comprehend, but the Bible(in almost any translation) shows how important it was for God's commands and instructions to be followed. Nadab and Abihu, Noah, Cain, Adam and EVe, Uzzah, Saul the king, Ananias and Saphira, Joshusa at Ai.

TrackDaddy

05-11-2005, 09:14 PM

If Lutherans and Cahtolics don't believe that baptizing infants is necessary...

Why would they do it?

Just to kill time? :rolleyes:

They do believe that it's necessary.

But baptism Biblically is a necessary "pledge of good conscience toward God and a show of faith and belief to be buried with Christ."

Babies can't pledge, have faith or belief since they can't even talk much less CHOOSE.

And Christianity...is a choice.

The confusion surrounding these mumbo jumbo denominations is...absurdly unscriptural.

Jesus and the Apostles...KNEW NOTHING of Lutheran or Catholic denominations...since they didn't exist.

But the Bible CLEARLY says that at Antioch, they were first called Christians.

Just plain Christians.

Not Lutherans, Catholics, Methodist, Baptists, JW's, Mormons, etc.....

THESE ARE MAN MADE ORGANIZATIONS CREATED BY MEN (who the Bible repeatedly warn of) WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OR CONFIRMATION OF GOD.

In a word...scams. :cool:

God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

And for those who don't think doctrine is important I REPEAT...the Bible SAYS OTHERWISE...whether you refuse to believe GOD thinks that way or not again consider...

DOCTRINE isVERY, VERY important (since it if nothing else, shows a willingness to obey)...

Paul told Timothy to

"watch your doctrine CLOSELY, in by doing so you will SAVE both you and your followers."

And Jesus said.... "IN VAIN...they do worship me...TEACHING AS COMMANDMENTS, THE DOCTRINE OF MEN."

Doctrine is never insignificant.

It is God who decides how He is to be worshiped.

Not you or what YOU think is important.

When did He ask you?

TrackDaddy

05-11-2005, 09:23 PM

TD, I wont change my mind and I know you wont either, however I find it hard to believe that a god as loving and caring as I am taught that he is would send me to hell for minor doctinal errors so long as I live my life as a good person.Matthew 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Luke

6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

TrackDaddy

05-11-2005, 09:39 PM

You will never stand in judgement based on the type of ceremonial garb, or the bureaucratic leadership structures, or what level of a dunking you took and at what age- of a particular religious social club who's meetings you may have attended in your lifetime. All of these things are human folly of one kind or another. Petty bickering and small-minded judgements passed back and fro on these sorts of issues are exactly the sort of thing Christ condemns in his rants about passing judgement. The type of music performed or not in various gatherings of his children will not be of overriding concern. In the end, how you conduct yourself outside such services will be of much greater interest, everybody generally behaves well in these services (for chrissakes!)

:confused:Folly?

As for your rational...it has no place in this instance (see my signature).

That's why we have instructions.

From the beginning of time God has ALWAYS dictated PRECISELY how He is to be worshiped (and punished those who disobeyed).

You are wrong about JESUS'S rants. He NEVER trivialized God's instructions for worshiping Him.

Quite the contrary.

Whether it was building altars for sacrifice (Old Testament), or singing hymns, etc....HOW YOU WORSHIP GOD is critical.

We don't have the right make these things up (like denominations do).

God TOLD US WHAT TO DO. He apparently knows how He wants to be worshiped.

And He has NEVER allowed "good intentions to supplant instructions."

See....we can't worship God by our own wishes....claiming we meant well.

That's, Biblically described as disobedience.

I must DO what I'm told (through His word) in order to please Him.

running high

05-11-2005, 10:48 PM

Regarding the story originally imposed by the thread, the pastor quit his job from that church.

Biscuit_AQ

05-11-2005, 11:42 PM

what languages have you read the scriptures in again TD?

exjersey1

05-11-2005, 11:47 PM

That's why we have instructions.

From the beginning of time God has ALWAYS dictated PRECISELY how He is to be worshiped (and punished those who disobeyed).

God TOLD US WHAT TO DO. He apparently knows how He wants to be worshiped.

And He has NEVER allowed "good intentions to supplant instructions."

See....we can't worship God by our own wishes....claiming we meant well.

That's, Biblically described as disobedience.

I must DO what I'm told (through His word) in order to please Him.

Since you do EXACTLY as the Bible tells you, you sacrifice animals as prescribed in Leviticus? You know Leviticus, otherwise known as The Book of Laws. You obey all those laws? Including the dietary code of Kashruth (Kosher to you); that's specified in Leviticus as well.

Or have you basically picked certain portions of the Bible to believe in?

And even if that's the case, if you truly believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, then you must realize that the Old Testament was his daddy's book, so that is obviously to be adhered to as well, no?

KenA55

05-12-2005, 12:31 AM

You are wrong about JESUS'S rants. He NEVER trivialized God's instructions for worshiping Him.

Nor did he instruct jews to leave their synagogues. He had no issue with the righteous of any affiliation among his flock.

You have every right and even duty to make judgements for yourself how best to serve your Lord. Do so, but do not presume to cast judgement on the same between your neighbor and the Lord. Do not presume to stand between your neighbor and the divine Spirit that guides his steps, his path and yours may have never been intended to cross. Most importantly do not attempt to proclaim who your Lord does and does not count among his children and chosen, this is the sin of Hubris. That is His and no one else's. When you do these things in congregate under the banner of a church you are denominating, whether you have named yourselves other than Christian or not, because you have separated at heart within the one body. Those who wish to be among you will be among you without being instructed that another way is errant.

jake

05-12-2005, 01:16 AM

If Lutherans and Cahtolics don't believe that baptizing infants is necessary...

Why would they do it?

Just to kill time? :rolleyes:

They do believe that it's necessary.

Why won't you admit when you are wrong? The Lutheran and Catholic churches do not "openly teach" that nonbapitzed infants are destined for hell. You are absolutely, 100% wrong about that. For someone who posts constantly about TRUTH, you don't seem to know the truth on that issue. I'm not going to try to get into some great doctrinal debate about whether infants should or shouldn't be baptized, but if you're going to get on here and start spouting off what another church believes and "openly teaches", don't try to cover your tracks when you are completely wrong.

You are free to have your beliefs as are others. You may believe you are completely right, but so do others. You throw out a verse like 1 Timoty 2:5, and its like "well that settles the debate about the pope". You act like no other theologian has ever read that verse, or the other one liners you throw out. I'm not saying they are right and you are wrong, but the fact is people smarter than you have read the same Bible you have and have reached different conclusions. People have also reached the same conclusions you have. Speaking TRUTH doesn't mean having no respect for the beliefs of others, but to me at least that is how your posts come off.

You keep making this argument that all these denominations in the Bible didn't exist, and aren't mentioned. I'm still trying to figure out the point you're making. If there was one church and it later split, and then split again etc. Of course there wouldn't be mentions of a bunch of specific denominations prior to the splits occurring. I fail to see how this argument proves the faith tradition you choose is any more legitimate than the ones you rip on as "scams".

100% Ozone Safe

05-12-2005, 01:59 AM

Doctrine is never insignificant.

It is God who decides how He is to be worshiped.

Not you or what YOU think is important.

When did He ask you?

This may be different for other people. But God asked me when he brought me to this world with a functioning brain and my own free will to interpret things.

Another thing, since when are you the one who makes the judgement on who will, and who will not make it into heaven? I beleive there is only one dude who has control of that. And that dude, is God.

You say things that have me somewhat awestruck. If i accept God as my only God, and Jesus as my savior, who died for my sins. If i accept those two things in my heart, and truly mean it. Then you guys/girls can all come hang out at my beachouse in Heaven (if you do the same). That is my beleif.

God is not sending me to hell for having gone to a Lutheran Church, and having my baptism when i was like 2 months old. he should have a better reason than that:p Have a good day everyone!! :D

xcrider

05-12-2005, 10:24 AM

Nor did he instruct jews to leave their synagogues. He had no issue with the righteous of any affiliation among his flock.

You have every right and even duty to make judgements for yourself how best to serve your Lord. Do so, but do not presume to cast judgement on the same between your neighbor and the Lord. Do not presume to stand between your neighbor and the divine Spirit that guides his steps, his path and yours may have never been intended to cross. Most importantly do not attempt to proclaim who your Lord does and does not count among his children and chosen, this is the sin of Hubris. That is His and no one else's. When you do these things in congregate under the banner of a church you are denominating, whether you have named yourselves other than Christian or not, because you have separated at heart within the one body.

Perhaps it is not TrackDaddy's intent to cast judgement on others. Possibly it is his intent to show people what he believes as the truth. TrackDaddy seems to base his beliefs on what the Bible teaches by command, example, and necessary inference. Others base their beliefs on some bible, and mandates by conferences, tradition, etc. Certainly TrackDaddy is not the judge, however, teaching what the Bible says does not necessarily constitute judging. I knew a man who taught a lesson on not offending others. Basically the point is that there is hardly any verse in the Bible that will not offend someone in the "Christian" religious world.

xcrider

05-12-2005, 10:30 AM

Since you do EXACTLY as the Bible tells you, you sacrifice animals as prescribed in Leviticus? You know Leviticus, otherwise known as The Book of Laws. You obey all those laws? Including the dietary code of Kashruth (Kosher to you); that's specified in Leviticus as well.

Or have you basically picked certain portions of the Bible to believe in?

And even if that's the case, if you truly believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, then you must realize that the Old Testament was his daddy's book, so that is obviously to be adhered to as well, no?

This is something that is often misunderstood. The Bible is one book, however it is made of of different parts. Patriarchal age(Adam to Moses), Mosaic(Moses to Christ), Christ to Today. Three separate laws, similar, but different. The Law of Moses was given to a specific people(The Israelites) certainly others could proselytize and follow the Jewish law, but I believe everyone else was under that law that men who followed God before Moses were under. As Christians we follow the new Covenant brought about by the teachings and death of Christ(Book of Hebrews). Certainly parts of Acts where Peter, James and other apostles and elders met to discuss the binding of the old law on Gentiles bears this out. Paul describes the old law(testament)as a schoolmaster to bring the jews to the time of Christ and the new covenant for all. Didn't put exact verses cause in a hurry, Will supply if needed/

xcrider

05-12-2005, 10:38 AM

This may be different for other people. But God asked me when he brought me to this world with a functioning brain and my own free will to interpret things.

Another thing, since when are you the one who makes the judgement on who will, and who will not make it into heaven? I beleive there is only one dude who has control of that. And that dude, is God. :D

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
Jn 12:48
Certainly no one here on earth is a judge of our souls. However, plainly the instruction the Lord gave is going to be what we are judged by. Encourage people to not take lightly anything he said.

TrackDaddy

05-12-2005, 04:14 PM

Since you do EXACTLY as the Bible tells you, you sacrifice animals as prescribed in Leviticus? You know Leviticus, otherwise known as The Book of Laws. You obey all those laws? Including the dietary code of Kashruth (Kosher to you); that's specified in Leviticus as well.

Or have you basically picked certain portions of the Bible to believe in?

And even if that's the case, if you truly believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, then you must realize that the Old Testament was his daddy's book, so that is obviously to be adhered to as well, no?Whoever has ears (can read) today...let him hear (read), TrackDaddy.

The word "Testament" means "will or agreement."

The word "Old" means...old.

The word "New" means...new.

Old Agreement (Testament).

New Agreement (Testament).

We live under the "New Agreement" in Christ.

The Old Agreement (Testament) which was for the Jews....was "nailed to the cross."

Therefore we don't build altars, sacrifice animals, stone disobedient children, keep the Sabbath, etc., etc., as the Old Testament JEWS were required to do.

The Old Testament's application for today is merely for us to understand history and read accounts of God's dealing with His people.

HEAR (and understand)!

TrackDaddy

05-12-2005, 04:15 PM

what languages have you read the scriptures in again TD?Huh?

You mean hebrew and Greek?

TrackDaddy

05-12-2005, 04:22 PM

Nor did he instruct jews to leave their synagogues. He had no issue with the righteous of any affiliation among his flock.

You have every right and even duty to make judgements for yourself how best to serve your Lord. Do so, but do not presume to cast judgement on the same between your neighbor and the Lord. Do not presume to stand between your neighbor and the divine Spirit that guides his steps, his path and yours may have never been intended to cross. Most importantly do not attempt to proclaim who your Lord does and does not count among his children and chosen, this is the sin of Hubris. That is His and no one else's. When you do these things in congregate under the banner of a church you are denominating, whether you have named yourselves other than Christian or not, because you have separated at heart within the one body. Those who wish to be among you will be among you without being instructed that another way is errant.I, my friend, am NOT the one being presumptuous.

That is YOU (and your Dyestat Legends Lounge Partners in Crime).

You "presume" that since what you say makes sense to you, it will be pleasing to God.

Wrong.

God DICTATES how He is to served.

Not you, your reasoning or and denominational sect.

Christians have not "separated at heart" within the body.

Christians don't carry hyphens (i.e. BaPtist-Christian, Catholic-Christian, Mormon-Christian,etc.).

THAT'S where the separation comes from.

Christians are "just Christians" and what they do is endorsed and required by scripture.

God is not the author of confusion.

That comes from "presumptuous men."

TrackDaddy

05-12-2005, 04:35 PM

You keep making this argument that all these denominations in the Bible didn't exist, and aren't mentioned. I'm still trying to figure out the point you're making. If there was one church and it later split, and then split again etc. Of course there wouldn't be mentions of a bunch of specific denominations prior to the splits occurring. I fail to see how this argument proves the faith tradition you choose is any more legitimate than the ones you rip on as "scams".Don't you see?

Christ's church never split.

The Bible says there is One faith, One Body, One Church.

Paul wrote there ar not to be "any divisions among you."

All these denominational creations of men are just that...divisions.

The only differences in the congregations in the Bible was...their location (Galatia, Corinth, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Rome, etc...).

NEVER THEIR DOCTRINE.

But th eBible CLEARLY says that "men will depart (the Church) and they will introduce heresies and false doctrines (like the Catholics-forbidding to marry) that will deceive the very elect if that were possible.

But were are encouraged not to be deceived. To hold fast to sound doctrine that can save.

I can show you CLEARLY all the scriptural basis for the TRUTH (which present to you).

All these false doctrines are the work of FALSE PROPHETS.

Hear!

TrackDaddy

05-12-2005, 04:37 PM

This may be different for other people. But God asked me when he brought me to this world with a functioning brain and my own free will to interpret things.

Another thing, since when are you the one who makes the judgement on who will, and who will not make it into heaven? I beleive there is only one dude who has control of that. And that dude, is God.

You say things that have me somewhat awestruck. If i accept God as my only God, and Jesus as my savior, who died for my sins. If i accept those two things in my heart, and truly mean it. Then you guys/girls can all come hang out at my beachouse in Heaven (if you do the same). That is my beleif.

God is not damning me to hell for having gone to a Lutheran Church, and having my baptism when i was like 2 months old. he should have a better reason than that:p Have a good day everyone!! :DIf the blind lead the blind...

They will BOTH fall into the ditch.

TrackDaddy

05-12-2005, 04:38 PM

This is something that is often misunderstood. The Bible is one book, however it is made of of different parts. Patriarchal age(Adam to Moses), Mosaic(Moses to Christ), Christ to Today. Three separate laws, similar, but different. The Law of Moses was given to a specific people(The Israelites) certainly others could proselytize and follow the Jewish law, but I believe everyone else was under that law that men who followed God before Moses were under. As Christians we follow the new Covenant brought about by the teachings and death of Christ(Book of Hebrews). Certainly parts of Acts where Peter, James and other apostles and elders met to discuss the binding of the old law on Gentiles bears this out. Paul describes the old law(testament)as a schoolmaster to bring the jews to the time of Christ and the new covenant for all. Didn't put exact verses cause in a hurry, Will supply if needed/Well said, friend.

exjersey1

05-12-2005, 04:56 PM

Whoever has ears (can read) today...let him hear (read), TrackDaddy.

The word "Testament" means "will or agreement."

The word "Old" means...old.

The word "New" means...new.

Old Agreement (Testament).

New Agreement (Testament).

We live under the "New Agreement" in Christ.

The Old Agreement (Testament) which was for the Jews....was "nailed to the cross."

Therefore we don't build altars, sacrifice animals, stone disobedient children, keep the Sabbath, etc., etc., as the Old Testament JEWS were required to do.

The Old Testament's application for today is merely for us to understand history and read accounts of God's dealing with His people.

HEAR (and understand)!

The word "agreement" does not appear in any definition for "testament" that I found. What continually appears, however, is "covenant."

So I'm continuing to wonder why it is acceptable for you to choose what covenant you accept and agree with but not for others to have the same right of interpretation?

And do I need to remind you that the Koran in an even newer "Testament" than the New Testament? So if new trumps old...................

xcrider

05-12-2005, 05:10 PM

The word "agreement" does not appear in any definition for "testament" that I found. What continually appears, however, is "covenant."

So I'm continuing to wonder why it is acceptable for you to choose what covenant you accept and agree with but not for others to have the same right of interpretation?

And do I need to remind you that the Koran in an even newer "Testament" than the New Testament? So if new trumps old...................

That is comparing apples to oranges. The Bible is viewed as God's communication to man. None of my statements are directed at those outside of "Christian belief". If you take the Bible as a whole and complete document, then you can see that man(Israel) failed in the covenant with God and a New Covenant was established.

TrackDaddy

05-12-2005, 05:16 PM

The word "agreement" does not appear in any definition for "testament" that I found. What continually appears, however, is "covenant."

So I'm continuing to wonder why it is acceptable for you to choose what covenant you accept and agree with but not for others to have the same right of interpretation?

And do I need to remind you that the Koran in an even newer "Testament" than the New Testament? So if new trumps old...................*Sigh* :rolleyes:

A covenant IS AN AGREEMENT.

Now go look that up.

And the Koran needs the Bible and even refers to it. The Bible makes no reference to the foolishness that is the Koran.

It's just more false doctrine spun from TRUTH.

Hear!

jake

05-12-2005, 05:16 PM

Don't you see?

Christ's church never split.

The Bible says there is One faith, One Body, One Church.

Paul wrote there ar not to be "any divisions among you."

All these denominational creations of men are just that...divisions.

It is clear the church did split. I think what you're saying is the one true church has been constant and the others that have split off are inventions of men. I'll agree with parts of that (I may disagree with how much of some are inventions of men). To me, just because you say you're not a member of a denomination, but are a member of the true Chruch, it doesn't mean you are necessarily accurate.

The problem I originally had was 100% Ozone Safe asked what beliefs the Lutheran church has that were incorrect. Your reply was "For one thing...The Catholic and Lutheran church openly teaches that newborns that die without being baptized will go to hell." The statement you made is completely inaccurate. There isn't any TRUTH to it.

All I'm asking is if you're going to make, what in my mind, are fairly harsh criticisms of other denominations, including calling a lot of denominations "scams", you should at least correctly portray their beliefs.

TrackDaddy

05-12-2005, 05:27 PM

It is clear the church did split. I think what you're saying is the one true church has been constant and the others that have split off are inventions of men. I'll agree with parts of that (I may disagree with how much of some are inventions of men). To me, just because you say you're not a member of a denomination, but are a member of the true Chruch, it doesn't mean you are necessarily accurate.

The problem I originally had was 100% Ozone Safe asked what beliefs the Lutheran church has that were incorrect. Your reply was "For one thing...The Catholic and Lutheran church openly teaches that newborns that die without being baptized will go to hell." The statement you made is completely inaccurate. There isn't any TRUTH to it.

All I'm asking is if you're going to make, what in my mind, are fairly harsh criticisms of other denominations, including calling a lot of denominations "scams", you should at least correctly portray their beliefs.THE CHURCH isn't man made.

The Bookn of Acts says that "God added to the Church daily those who were being saved..."

So, you don't "join" the TRUE Church. Through obedience God will add you to it.

As for infant baptism...what I said still stands.

If Lutheran and Catholics don't feel that infant baptism is necessary...why bother?

Jesus said "whoever believes AND is baptized, will be saved."

Peter said "repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins..."

NONE of the instruction to be baptized can apply to infants. None of it.

They can't REPENT, BELIEVE, CONFESS that Jesus is Lord, etc...all of which is required.

Baptizing infants is man-made ritualistic doctrine fueled through ignorance and confusion.

Why don't YOU admit that?

jake

05-12-2005, 06:17 PM

As for infant baptism...what I said still stands.

I've said more than once I'm not interested in debating the merits of infant baptism. The question originally asked wasn't "Why do Catholics and Lutheran's baptize infants?", or "Should Catholics and Lutherans baptize infants?" The question Ozone asked was "What does the Lutheran church believe that is wrong?" Your answer began "the Catholic and Lutheran churches openly teach non-baptized babies will go to hell." That isn't true. YOU ARE WRONG. You can say whatever you want, but neither church teaches that. If you're going to call what I believe a "scam" don't misrepresent what that scam is.

I'll put this challenge to you. If this is an open teaching of either church please provide me a reference where this is taught. I've already provided a reference from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that states specifically what you said isn't what Catholics believe.

When you make a statement that is 100% inaccurate and someone calls you on it, you can't just say "what I said still stands", and expect that to be a sufficient reply. I await your response that shows me where this "open teaching" is.

Biscuit_AQ

05-12-2005, 06:44 PM

give up jake. A reasonable discussion requires two reasonable participants, not one reasonable guy and a dismissive lunatic.

Kalaby

05-12-2005, 07:34 PM

give up jake. A reasonable discussion requires two reasonable participants, not one reasonable guy and a dismissive lunatic.

Quoted for emphasis.

Jake don't join into this madness, I've been down this road before with TrackDaddy...trust me, don't waste your time with him on this topic.

The best defense is to put him on Ignore like I have recently done.

jake

05-12-2005, 10:48 PM

Quoted for emphasis.

Jake don't join into this madness, I've been down this road before with TrackDaddy...trust me, don't waste your time with him on this topic.

The best defense is to put him on Ignore like I have recently done.

Kalaby and Biscuit_AQ, thanks for the advice. I know what my church teaches and what it doesn't, and that is all that really matters. I probably should have stopped 2 posts ago.

TrackDaddy

05-12-2005, 10:59 PM

Am I therefore your enemy...since I tell you the TRUTH?

jrun

05-12-2005, 11:02 PM

I don't think this thread has resorted to personal attacks or name-calling yet, so I see some usefulness. It's nice to be able to explain, support, and debate the views that one holds in a civil manner.

It is understandable if one doesn't want to due to rehashing old topics.

TrackDaddy

05-12-2005, 11:19 PM

Kalaby and Biscuit_AQ, thanks for the advice. I know what my church teaches and what it doesn't, and that is all that really matters. I probably should have stopped 2 posts ago.Besides infant baptism another CONDEMNED false practice of Lutherans (and Baptists, Catholics, etc..) is the titles they give their leaders.

For example...calling each other "Most Reverend, Reverend, (And Catholics) Father, Holy Father, etc..."

The word reverend means AWESOME (that's why Lutherans put the word "the" infront of it) and is only used in the King James version of the Bible one time...

And that verse says..."Holy and reverend is HIS name." (Ps. 111:9)

Guess who "His" refers to.

Men aren't AWESOME...God is.

In Matt. 23 Jesus says..."not to call each other Rabbi, teacher or Father (He was not refering to a parent but He meant in a reverent way)...FOR YOU ARE ALL BROTHERS.

Read this QUOTE from Jesus and you'll see that He CLEARLY is describing the sort of dysfunction that was at the time orthodix Jews and is now THE POPE and parts of the mess that is Catholicism...

5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

It seems that Catholics specifically set out to reject Christs instructions.

From the garments to calling men "priest, pope, father, etc..."

Hear!

jrun

05-12-2005, 11:33 PM

It seems that Catholics specifically set out to reject Christs instructions.

TD, with the Bible being fairly common in the world today, will any one of the Catholic leaders pick it up and correct the Catholic church's practices?

Kalaby

05-13-2005, 12:01 AM

jrun

05-13-2005, 12:06 AM

Care to refute this one post (of TD's)?

For example...calling each other "Most Reverend, Reverend, (And Catholics) Father, Holy Father, etc..."

The word reverend means AWESOME (that's why Lutherans put the word "the" infront of it) and is only used in the King James version of the Bible one time...

And that verse says..."Holy and reverend is HIS name." (Ps. 111:9)

Guess who "His" refers to.

Men aren't AWESOME...God is.

In Matt. 23 Jesus says..."not to call each other Rabbi, teacher or Father (He was not refering to a parent but He meant in a reverent way)...FOR YOU ARE ALL BROTHERS.

Read this QUOTE from Jesus and you'll see that He CLEARLY is describing the sort of dysfunction that was at the time orthodix Jews and is now THE POPE and parts of the mess that is Catholicism...

5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

It seems that Catholics specifically set out to reject Christs instructions.

From the garments to calling men "priest, pope, father, etc..."

Hear!

TrackDaddy

05-13-2005, 12:39 AM

TD, with the Bible being fairly common in the world today, will any one of the Catholic leaders pick it up and correct the Catholic church's practices?I seriously doubt it, but it is my prayer.

My friend Kalaby's response seems to be the standard.

Unfortunately. :(

100% Ozone Safe

05-13-2005, 01:34 AM

Care to refute this one post (of TD's)?

yea.

Besides infant baptism another CONDEMNED false practice of Lutherans (and Baptists, Catholics, etc..) is the titles they give their leaders.

For example...calling each other "Most Reverend, Reverend, (And Catholics) Father, Holy Father, etc..."

Hear!

The only title i know of at my church for a person: Pastor. I've never called anybody at my church Father/Holy Father/Reverend/Rabbi. If somebody asked me to refer to someone else at my church as "Holy Father" I'd laugh.

Actually, i just remembered some other titles at our church: Youth Leader, Sunday School Teacher, assistant Sunday School Teacher (thats me), and Organ Player... are those allowed?

Back to my starting question. What is something that is incorrect I learn at my Lutheran Church? Please don't bring up babies dying then going to hell or the stuff about Father/Reverend, those have already been brought up incorrectly (at least for my religon).

MoMo

05-13-2005, 10:18 AM

Jwaksman

05-13-2005, 10:36 AM

How come God only talks to crazy people? You've never heard about a guy who was told by God how to create a vaccine or something...

xcrider

05-13-2005, 10:45 AM

MoMo

05-13-2005, 10:59 AM

TrackDaddy

05-13-2005, 11:17 AM

TDiddy, I just don't get it.

You say all men are brothers, but then you thunder down your judgments, raining them on us as from a millennial storm on high, pelting us with your personal certainties, preaching your black-and-white version of things as if you were the Lord Himself, as if you were All-Knowing and All-Seeing, bereft of any possibility of human weakness, shortcoming, myopia or possible capacity for misunderstanding.

Brothers don't talk to brothers that way.MoMo, friend...

I present the TRUTH in LOVE.

Sometimes the things that are most difficult to hear are what is most needed.

If I lied to you, would that make me your friend?

Listen to what I'm saying. What man knows of Christianity comes from God's word. Not good intentions.

The TRUTH of the matter is that these things I've spoken of ARE BLACK AND WHITE.

Christianity is SIMPLE. BLACK and WHITE. The Bible (which dictates Christian doctrine) says that God is not the author of confusion.

Man is.

Notice that my criticisms (which aren't mine but God's from His word) in this thread are because man has created confusion.

Very clear...irrefutable...Biblically.

All of the ritualistic confusion created by denominations aren't scriptural... they're man made.

I would know nothing w/o God's word.

You said I present myself as all-knowing...well, this isn't difficult to know.

God wouldn't require something of us and then not tell us how to do it.

Historical Examples of man's denominational confusion ...

Catholicism (WHICH ISN'T tHE CHURCH) was started some 600 years AFTER the CHURCH was built by Christ and God added to it on the day Pentecost.

The amount of Biblical criticism directed toward the things done in Catholicism is flat out astounding.

I can give you the DATES and the NAMES of the people who started all these denominations YEARS after Christ started the Church and the apostles gaved clear instructions to it.

All this unauthorized mumbo jumbo IS CONDEMNED Biblically.

The Bible speaks of MANY PEOPLE being deceived even to the point of destruction through false doctrine.

The reason?

They, LIKE YOU, won't read it for themselves and assume all who are claiming Christianity are based in truth.

But the Bible presents EXACTLY how God is to be served.

And why everyone assumes it doesn't matter to Him how that is done...is a fool's perspective.

Not only does He care...according to the Bible He won't tolerate or accept anything less.

The TRUTH is simple, plain and clear.

MoMo

05-13-2005, 11:28 AM

Yep. It certainly is to me.

TrackDaddy

05-13-2005, 11:35 AM

Which closes the circle.

As said many times before on here, one person will read the Bible one way, another will read it entirely differently.

This goes to the very most basic level. When the Bible says "...evening came and morning followed -- the first day..." some will take that as a 24-hour day (as if there were hours back then); others will take it less literally.

TDiddy's thundering's aside, there is no INHERENTLY AUTHENTIC SINGLE INTERPRETATION of the Bible, any more than of any other set of several thousands of (sometimes self-contradicting) words.The Bible isn't open to "private interpretation." It says the SAME THING to everyone when kept in context just like any other book or the moring paper.

People try and make it say what they want for their own selfish reasons.

Just like tax law.

You can tell a cop that you thought the stop sign means something else to you if you want.

But you will still get a ticket for running it.

I apologize for "thundering."

If I knew I was coming off that way, I wouldn't do it.

But the issue is the most critical of all issues and a soul's destiny is at stake.

MoMo

05-13-2005, 11:41 AM

TrackDaddy

05-13-2005, 11:47 AM

Certainly there is right way and a wrong way to discuss things. As said in an above post, the teachings of a "church:" do not always reflect what all the churches of the same type(baptist, catholic, methodist, etc.) and this riles people a lot of time. I try(not perfectly) to avoid labeling every one that goes to a certain church, however, the truth is the truth. Perhaps the way TRack Daddy states his case offends some.

"the pattern seems to be that I am free to believe what I want" and it is wrong for you to tell me differently, that's judging, etc. etc.. A CHALLENGE of sorts. I don't know Track Daddy or all his beliefs, but if you want to "win" a discussion with him, use the Bible and show him . To me the Bible is the source of authority. Not a preacher, not what my church teaches, not what my parents do, but the Bible. If you aren't following it, I don't think you can stand before God and give any reason or excuse why. That is not a judgement of mine, that is what the book says over and over, and over.Exactly. The Bible is our point of reference for Christianity.

But the thing is...(as you know, xc) everything I've posted is CLEARLY from scripture.

And everything I've criticized of denominations...isn't.

I've learned in the past to be careful posting scripture in the Lounge since it tends to really anger some.

Or I would GLADLY post all my references.

MoMo thinks man can't know God's will. He thinks this because he sees all these denominations around and supposes since they are all well intentioned that they are legit.

He thinks that I can't possibly be right since I'm in the minority.

But again, his reasoning separates him from the truth that God has given us (the Bible).

The Bible says that MANY FALSE PROPHETS are in the world. MANY.

That alone dismisses the possibilty of all denominations being true.

TrackDaddy

05-13-2005, 11:56 AM

And I apologize for thundering about your thundering.

But I've always been far more open to persuasion by the humble man
than by his opposite.

It's like the old fable about the wind and the sun betting on which could get a man to take off his coat.

Righteous gusts of certainty will never win me over the way a gentle, steady warming can do.I can't apologize for the TRUTH.

But I will apologize for being too harsh or direct.

I truly believe that if you researched my position, it would at least be a cause for further consideration.

Haven't you noticed that no one has argued FOR the confusing things done in Catholicism?

Of all the denominational people I'm familiar with...Catholics are the most easily convinced that what they do religiously may not be right.

The reason?

There is no Biblical basis for most of it.

When I read that Zat converted to Catholicism...I was a extremely surprised.

How can someone so SMART...by into that confusion?

Then I thought...it's all around him.

MoMo

05-13-2005, 11:57 AM

No, I think you can't KNOW that you're right because you're human --- as exactly as human as I am.

xcrider

05-13-2005, 01:05 PM

No, I think you can't KNOW that you're right because you're human --- as exactly as human as I am.

None of us are going to be perfect, so in that sense I agree. Biblically speaking, I think the word is compared to a mirror(book of James) that shows how we measure up in God's sight. What we have to do is measure ourselves to the Bible. Contradicting words? Don't think so. People imperfect, members of church imperfect, but gotta believe that God wouldn't give us an imperfect plan. Or a divisive one. Now you can take that two ways. One wouldn't be divisive if everyone can have their own interpretation and therefore many different plans(ie Salvation by faith alone, grace alone, predestination, baptism, etc.) Or there is a plan, and people don;'t see it because 1. They choose not to. 2. They want to do it their way(God's is too difficult, too easy, or they have a better one) 3. or they are being guided by someone else. I don't see this as being right. I believe in a perfect God, and believe that as he says there is one way, one path, and one law. Does that mean I have the only right way? I try to study regularly to make sure of that, and I appreciate all these comments by different people so that I can try what I believe by the word. Encourage others to do the same.

Zat0pek

05-13-2005, 01:08 PM

Haven't you noticed that no one has argued FOR the confusing things done in Catholicism?

Of all the denominational people I'm familiar with...Catholics are the most easily convinced that what they do religiously may not be right.

The reason?

There is no Biblical basis for most of it.

When I read that Zat converted to Catholicism...I was a extremely surprised.

How can someone so SMART...by into that confusion?

Then I thought...it's all around him.

I chose to stay out of this discussion because frankly it doesn't lead anywhere. Neither of us is likely to alter our positions. I am respectful of your view, TD, because for many years I shared a lot of it. I also now believe it to be wrong. Not wrong in the sense of the opposite of right, just wrong in the sense that it is incomplete.

My conversion to Catholicism started out as a curiosity that quickly grew to a strong interest the more I learned. Much of what non-denominational biblical literalists believe about Catholicism simply isn't grounded in fact. In the process, I believe they miss a great deal of the depth and richness of the Scriptures.

Let me give you a very rough anaology. Bear with me for moment. Click here to see a picture of Michaelangelo's The Creation from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel: http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/056bg.jpg

Notice two things about this painting. Look at the nonplussed look on Adam's face, and the cape behind God. Notice anything about the cape? Look again. Does it remind you anything? The flowing cape is in the form of a cross section of the human brain. Why is that?

Because this painting doesn't represent God's physical creation of man. After all, Adam already exists in the painting. So why the cross section of the brain? This painting shows the moment just before God conveys consciousness to Man, the imparting of the soul and self-awareness that separates humans from all other living creatures. The vacant look on Adam's face reveals that he has not yet recieved what God is about to impart; he is unaware and unenlightened. Michaelangelo was doing human dissection to enhance his knowledge of anatomy and improve his art of the human form and it was from this knowledge that he drew his inspiration for the form of the cape and the meaning in his art.

My point here is that once this is pointed out to you, you see new depth, truth and meaning in this picture that you didn't know from a mere literal viewing of it. Such is the study of God's word as well. This DOES NOT IN ANY WAY detract from the truth of scripture any more than the knowledge of the painting I just gave detracts from the truth of the art. On the contrary, it adds to it.

We could have an endless debate on here about the foundations of Catholicism but, honestly, it would be fruitless. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to attempt to change your mind, nor would I expect to change mine. I would be happy to give you a reading list (including Peter's own writings, in which it is clear that he, and the other disciples, understood the charge that Christ had left to Peter on earth) on the subject, but I suspect (no disrespect intended) that your response would be that it isn't needed because you already have the only reading list you need, the Bible. I get that. I disagree with it, but I understand it.

This is precisely where the evolution discussion gets sidetracked. Precious few people understand both the math (yes, the math) AND the theology well enough truly understand the interrelationship. Evolution certainly exists at a certain level, but humans did not evolve from a lower life form and the Earth is also most definitely NOT 6,000 years old. Both the math and theology have to be understood.

KenA55

05-13-2005, 01:09 PM

There are certain areas of Christian theology and teaching that are held in reserve for the Divine only. It simply isn't ours to know or undersatnd, for example, when judgement day shall arrive or who God will and will not accept into his kingdom. We certainly can and will nevertheless have our various opinions and there will be discussions of these matters here in this life. But I would strongly advise any who would venture to walk upon such waters to do with the proper humility that goes hand in hand with knowing that it is only by divine grace if you aren't floundering competely, since there's no knowing in this lifetime, on such waters, whether you are sucking air or drowning yourself. Nor is there any Divine intent for things to be any other way. For you Trackdaddy, that means that I would prefer to see you express your opinions and relay what teaching you're interested in passing along in these particular areas, in a manner that acknowledges your potential for human ignorance. Be a thundering bear when detailing the exclusively best choices for saving oneself from the fires of this world, because you're the man for that. But in the knowledge that you have no sure knowledge upon the aforementioned waters, it may be a good idea to consider whether the more humble water strider posseses the proper spirit for the stroll, rather than the roaring bear.

It's no doubt within His powers to support even that bear on those waters, but you're really pushing your luck. I know if you show up at my door looking for a pledge to support your journey, you sure as hell better be looking more like that waterbug than the large mammal.

It strikes me that you're losing touch to some extent with the proper hierarchy involved in the relationship between scripture and God. Scripture, as a matter of faith, is communication from God. It is hewn and shaped into languages and images of this world for the benefit of the fact that we may understand it at least on some level because of that. The imagery may or may not be an exact reflection of otherworldly realities. God may or may not have inspired other such works in other times with other cultures that possess another imagery different than what you'll find in the Bible. You may not like the possibility that He would have done such a thing, but frankly God is not bound by your desires, nor is he bound by any particular piece of scriptural work. He will do as He wills regardless of anyone quoting chapter and verse at him, from the Bible or the Koran or the Upanishads, doesn't matter. Scripture serves God's purposes, not the other way around.

And lastly, don't forget Christ's admonitions, with regards to the importance of ceremonial matters relative to how we conduct ourselves throughout our lives. Who did the Father's will, the son who payed superficial homage to that will but did not do the work, or rather the son who refused to acknowledge that will but then went and did the work regardless? And who can be forgiven, he who refused God himself or he who refused the Spirit of God?

xcrider

05-13-2005, 01:47 PM

KenA55

05-13-2005, 02:27 PM

Would you expect any time-tested popular religion to do anything less? Of course each will market their own product as the best, though degrees of tolerance for other faiths certainly do vary. The Buddhists and Hindus are pretty famous for co-existing without clashing principles, even to the point where adhering to both is reasonably common.

Biscuit_AQ

05-13-2005, 02:35 PM

God did not write the bible. men did.

xcrider

05-13-2005, 04:37 PM

Christianity does, pretty explicitly. Islam states that Jews, Christians, Sabaeans etc will all go to Heaven (I'll post the actual passage later). Judaism..it really depends on whether it's Hasidic or Reform. I don't know about Hinduism.

I would really appreciate that. I know that sometimes we only hear of the more radical side that is allied with Islam. As we usually do with other religions. Does this mean that they teach there is no reason for a Jew Christian, etc. to convert to Islam?

exjersey1

05-13-2005, 04:44 PM

Question: Islam, Hindu, Jewish religion, Christian. Do not all these teach that the other ones are false? Seriously, I only know some about each one, certainly no expert. Tolerance is one thing and that is needed. But do they not at the core believe their revelation or whatever is the only true one?

It's been some time for me since I was active in my religion, but I don't recall ever being taught that anyone else's beliefs were false or bad, just that they were different.

TrackDaddy

05-14-2005, 02:43 AM

Zat...I hope you know that I wasn't picking on you. In fact, my reference to you was sort of a compliment.

I understand clearly your position and will tell you that I don't understand why anyone would want to complicate something so simple.

Christianity is simple.

But if you looked around...you wouldn't know it.

BTW...According to the Bible...Peter was a married...man.

And the charge that Christ gave him was fulfilled in Acts chapter 2...

600 years before Catholicism.

Ken... you again refer to my style as though it offends.

I think what really offends is my position of surety in the matter.

But just the same I will apologize again for "thundering."

I would like for you to know, however, that I am 100% correct ABOUT EVERYTHING I'VE POSTED.

100%.

God left Zero doubt about His will for us in worshiping Him.

Man has confused it as God said he would.

So, I'm not surprised by the need to type this. Not at all.

I think the reason there is so much resistence in the Lounge (besides pride and the fact that is has been prophesied that it would be resisted) is because the proof that I am correct is in the Bible.

And it isn't on the reading list of the Legends.

Not contextually anyway.

Everything...but. :(

Zat0pek

05-14-2005, 12:50 PM

And it isn't on the reading list of the Legends.

It is with me. Why would you think otherwise?

exjersey1

05-14-2005, 02:37 PM

I would like for you to know, however, that I am 100% correct ABOUT EVERYTHING I'VE POSTED.

100%.

(

No, you BELIEVE that you're 100% correct. The only way you can say with absolute certainty that you ARE 100% correct is if you are indeed God.

100% Ozone Safe

05-14-2005, 03:22 PM

I should not have made my name "100% Ozone Safe", because now when anyone ever says "100%" I get thinking that people are talking to me.

running high

05-14-2005, 04:11 PM

It's been some time for me since I was active in my religion, but I don't recall ever being taught that anyone else's beliefs were false or bad, just that they were different.

All roads lead to heaven, eh?

luv2run

05-14-2005, 04:50 PM

All roads lead to heaven, eh?No, but for all we know there may be "heaven" for Christians, Nirvana for Buddhists, another type of heaven for Muslims, and oblivion for atheists.

We don't know for sure (the Bible's assurances notwithstanding) which roads lead to where. None of us (as far as I know) are God; we are all fallible. That's why it's a bad idea to teach that other views are false, even if you personally believe that that they are.

(Unless you can disprove it, such as the claim that the world is flat.)

TrackDaddy

05-14-2005, 07:58 PM

It is with me. Why would you think otherwise?Well, how is it that you resolve issues with the scripture that follows...being Catholic?

Isn't it clear from His words that Catholicism in regard to Priest, Popes, Cardinals, etc....has opposed His teaching?

5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

running high

05-14-2005, 08:22 PM

That's why it's a bad idea to teach that other views are false, even if you personally believe that that they are.

Well, it's not necessarily "taught" that they are wrong. More of assumed so than said so.

Why be a Christian if it's just as good to be Hindu? It's because one would believe it is the correct thing to be a Christian. Meaning that they think the other supossed paths are the wrong ones.

Besides, Christianity and Islam contradict each other. Of course it is believed, by both sides, that the other is wrong. Unless of course, I assumed wrong and muslims don't believe in absolute truth, which would be odd.

Zat0pek

05-15-2005, 01:14 AM

Well, how is it that you resolve issues with the scripture that follows...being Catholic?

Isn't it clear from His words that Catholicism in regard to Priest, Popes, Cardinals, etc....has opposed His teaching?

Not at all. This is the great myth that, like you, I accepted unquestioningly for many years. The myth is that Catholics disregard the truth of scripture. Hogwash. The additional information I provided about Michaelangelo's painting didn't detract from the mere literal viewing of it; it added to it and brought out even deeper meaning. Likewise, illuminating scripture beyond the mere text doesn't detract from it; it adds to and deepens it.

See my posts on the papal sanctification thread for just a glimpse of my response to this question. Because at the end of the day, this myth whithers under the weight of the scripture against it.

KenA55

05-15-2005, 12:31 PM

I would like for you to know, however, that I am 100% correct ABOUT EVERYTHING.....100%.

...and here I thought you had to be female to qualify for that. Are you sure you're not my ex-wife????
:D

Jwaksman

05-15-2005, 01:37 PM

God did not write the bible. men did.

My roommate is a religion major and he was taking a course on the Hebrew Bible in the religion department, and the teacher started off the course by saying, "Just so everybody knows, this will be a scholarly course. That means that if you really believe that God wrote the Bible then you should just leave right now."

jake

05-15-2005, 07:19 PM

Well, how is it that you resolve issues with the scripture that follows...being Catholic?

Isn't it clear from His words that Catholicism in regard to Priest, Popes, Cardinals, etc....has opposed His teaching?

5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

TrackDaddy, to me, verses 5-7 clearly imply and discuss intent and purpose, not that there should be no ceremonial garments, rituals etc. For instance, God clearly states in the Bible, that prayer and fasting, when done strictly for show, are inappropriate, but he doesn't forbid these things completely.

8-12, can't be taken literally. Are we to call no human teacher or father?

Paul in 1 Corinthians "15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."

1 Timothy "7And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles."

2 Timothy "11And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher."

1 Corinthians "28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."

TrackDaddy

05-15-2005, 10:37 PM

Jake...context my friend...context.

What Jesus said IS meant literally...but context is important.

He didn't mean not to call your birth father, father. The Bible uses that term repeated in reference to a male parent.

He meant that it is FORBIDDEN in a REVERENTIAL way...i.e., the "Father" references to a Catholic Priest or the "Holy Father" references to the Pope. Men aren't to be given reverential titles.

God is to be REVERED. Not man.

As for the term "teacher" it is applied the same way. He meant not to use it as a term of reverence for other men. Biblically, Teacher was used in reference to Christ...who is the master teacher.

Conclusion: Certainly there are teachers and fathers. But men are not to be praised reverentially whith those terms.

One of the main reasons you don't REVERE men in these ways is because of man's fallible nature. Peter was a perfect example. Several times the Bible mentions him lying and also speaks of him being prejudiced.

Now in your post you see where Jesus says in the verse 8...you are all brothers.

INCIDENTALLY...PETER, WHO CATHOLICS SAY WAS THE FIRST POPE (or Holy Father)...WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE JESUS WAS TALKING TO WHEN HE was speaking in these verses and SAID not to use these reverential terms for...

"YOU ARE ALL BROTHERS."

And Paul's reference in I Cor 15....he's only saying that he introduced them to truth. Remember that those in the first century didn't have the complete New Testament to refer to as we do today. THEY WERE LIVING IT. The letters (like I Corinthtians) that he wrote them was used for instruction in truth. He was their father in the gospel in that they were "new babes in Christ" who didn't have canonized scripture to refer to.

He wasn't telling them to call him "father." He, as Jesus said is...their brother.