Dems & Reps

[414Flyer]

I was so hoping for a Cubs vs Red Sox World Series, and it came so close to happening

 

[Super 80]

by way of explanation on a small point

FlyBuddy has it right. The main point of the Gospel accounts is to believe in the One whom God sent, Jesus. After that, there is a life time of study in the Word, but it does not replace the simple truth that by faith in Christ Jesus are we saved.

Tony,

I will attempt to answer your two posts as succinctly as possible. However, the fine degree of delineation we're discussing is difficult to make very simple. It does not mean either of us is wrong, but it does show there can be varying degrees of looking at an issue within Christian thought without that disagreement voiding the essential truth of the Gospel.

So, how many churches are there? Christ has one body, and that body is His church - - sounds to me like there's only one church.

Essentially yes, there is one body. This is the great multitude found in Revelation. These are those from Adam's time up that point that are in the Book of Life.

In the respect though that we will all be one, there are many different types of us. Remember the parable of the workers hired during various parts of the day? When they went to get paid, the master paid the last hired first a whole day's wage. So those that had been hired earlier thought they would get more. But they were paid what they were promised, a day's wage. No matter how many treasures you amass in heaven, the reward for faith is the same, life everlasting. So in that respect, we are all one.

You seem to be well-versed in Greek. Is it possible that the seven groups of believers mentioned in Revelation were congregations of the same One church?

The seven churches of Revelation were seven physical locations in what is now western Turkey. They were seven actual congregations of believers. On a map, these locations make a semicircle roughly from the seven o'clock position going clockwise in order to the four o'clock position.

Let me make sure that I read you right on one last point. Am I to understand that the assertion by Christ that the judgment will come as a thief in the night - - no man knoweth the hour - - only applies to people who worship in a certain style?

I would say, and it is my interpretation, that those that are spiritually dead will certainly be surprised at Christ's return. This describes more than just a certain "style" of worship.

I quoted Christ in Luke and asked you if He was speaking to everyone, and you jump to Revelation. I really wasn't looking for anything complicated, just a simple answer to a simple question:

Was Christ, in Luke 12:40 talking to everyone?

Peter asks this of Jesus and the answer Jesus gives is long and does not answer Peter directly but couches it in relational form of a manager of a house and a master. Jesus says in part from Luke 12:42-48 that he who knows the master's will and does not do it will suffer.

This also recalls the parable of the two sons, one that says he won't do as his father tells him but does, and the other that says he will but doesn't (MT 21:28-32).

I think the church of Sardis describes such a people. They say they know Jesus, but don't keep his commands. This type of people will be thrown out with the unbelievers (LK 12:47). This type of faith where you say one thing, but do another is spiritually dead (REV 3:1).

So the reason I quoted Revelation is that I see a connection between these parables and that church. To me, they describe the same type of self-professed Christian. So the lesson I hear is that I have to put my faith into gear and do something now that I know about Jesus.

When you refer to seven churches, I assume you're quoting from Revelation, but I'm not sure. You see, it's John who wrote to the "seven churches which are in Asia." (Rev 1:4)

Yes, I was. John is writing was what revealed from the Father through Jesus to John. That is what Revelation means in the Greek.

In a book chocked full of symbolism and mystery, why do you choose to assign a literal value to the number 12 squared times a thousand? (144,000) Can you be sure that seven is a literal number, and not symbolic of something more fundamental?

I take exception to this notion. Like I said, Revelation has much in it that explains mysteries. So, on the whole after studying it for so long, I don't think this is a fair assessment of the apocryphal style of writing that is done at the end of a three hundred year period when this style of writing was done.

It is said that John draws on Old Testament images and has put them down. However, if the OT prophetic images were true, and the book of Revelation is actually God through Jesus revealing to John as John testifies this book is, then is it any surprise they are repeated in form?

Look at Zechariah chapter four. Here is another vision of the Churches in a slightly different form. This vision is not explained as well as Jesus reveals to John. However, there is much in similarity to the vision of the Churches Jesus presents to John.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people are intent on discarding simple interpretations in favor of unreasonably complex ones.

The essential message of the Bible is simple. However, there are complex issues in any systematic theology. I think it goes back to the nature of God to want us to seek Him out. And the deeper I look, the more I find layers of meaning and understanding that enriches my appreciation of who God is, and He is an awesome God.

 

[Timebuilder]

It does not mean either of us is wrong, but it does show there can be varying degrees of looking at an issue within Christian thought without that disagreement voiding the essential truth of the Gospel.

This is the reason I decided to recuse myself from your duscussion. The gospel is clear enough, and others who have made a lifetime of study have found reasons to disagree about the coming events. Pre, mid, post? I don't care. Seven years or not? No big deal. No secret rapture? We shall see. There are many who have sudied well and decided that we can be caught up at any moment, that this will begin seven years of tribulation, and that during that time many who confess Christ will be killed. How and when these people will be ressurected is of no concern to me, since I have no doubt that God will make a righteous provision for them according to His will.

It is a mystery. One which we will eventually understand.

 

[surfnole]

6Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth--to every nation, tribe, language and people.

Thanks for that quote. I have never noticed that before, and it explains the prophecy of how the gospel must be preached to all nations first. I thought that literally, man had to go out to every tribe/nation etc.

As far as signs before the end times, what do you think this one is?

Mark 13

14"When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation'[1] standing where it[2] does not belong--let the reader understand--then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Matthew 24

15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'[1] spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand-- 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.


Is the above where people come up with the idea that the Jewish temple must be rebuilt? If not, where does that prophecy come from?

 

[AeroBoy]

Timebuilder,

Would the "child molesters" you are talking about include the Roman Catholic priests? Aren't these the same people who were "spreading the word of God" at the same time they were molesting children? Are these not the same people who were judging others as "satan worshippers" or "evil-doers" in public, while molesting children behind closed doors?

While we're on the subject of religion, doesn't "organized" religion itself cause war among different peoples? I mean all one has to do is look at Israel/Palestine or 9/11 to understand this fact.

 

[TonyC]

Re: by way of explanation on a small point

In the respect though that we will all be one, there are many different types of us. Remember the parable of the workers hired during various parts of the day? When they went to get paid, the master paid the last hired first a whole day's wage. So those that had been hired earlier thought they would get more. But they were paid what they were promised, a day's wage. No matter how many treasures you amass in heaven, the reward for faith is the same, life everlasting. So in that respect, we are all one.

The common thread between all those laborers is that they were obedient to the Master. They worked in the same vineyard, did what the Master commanded, and received the Master's reward. The only difference between them was the time at which they began their service. They did not serve in different vineyards or devise their own style of "obeying" the Master.

I would say, and it is my interpretation, that those that are spiritually dead will certainly be surprised at Christ's return. This describes more than just a certain "style" of worship.

Please don't be offended by my use of the word style - I got it from you, as you described the style of worship at Sardis and Philadelphia. I got the impression you believe worshipping in the style of the Philadelphia church will give you immunity from the "surprise factor" of judgment day.

But since each style of worship exists from the first century into the future, while the Churches go in turn, each style of worship can be found at any time through the whole period. If your style of worship is like the Church of Sardis, indeed the coming of Christ will overtake you like a thief. That is why I need to personally make sure my style of worship is like that of Philadelphia.

Peter asks this of Jesus and the answer Jesus gives is long and does not answer Peter directly but couches it in relational form of a manager of a house and a master. Jesus says in part from Luke 12:42-48 that he who knows the master's will and does not do it will suffer.

Again, the common thread between the faithful servant and the unfaithful servant is neither knows the hour that the Master returns. Indeed, the one who served faithfully will be rewarded, and the one who does not the Master's will will be punished. To the former, the second coming will be a pleasant surprise, and to the latter, a fearful surprise. Yet to both, it will be a surprise. You're telling me there's no chance that the surprise can occur today. That doesn't make sense to me.

I take exception to this notion.[that 144,000 is a literal number and not symbolic] Like I said, Revelation has much in it that explains mysteries. So, on the whole after studying it for so long, I don't think this is a fair assessment of the apocryphal style of writing that is done at the end of a three hundred year period when this style of writing was done.

I'm trying to make sure I understand what you're saying before I respond, and I feel like I'm treading on shaky ground here. Am I to believe that you think the apochryphal style of writing does not contain symbolism, metaphors, and allusions? (Not illusions, allusions.)

I hope I'm wrong in that assessment, because I think it's pretty clear to most readers that not everything in Revelation is literal. Morever, I don't think it's intended to be literal. As you mentioned, the apochryphal style of writing was commonplace at the time, and was used to convey messages from those versed in the style to others versed in the style, while hiding the same messages from those unversed. Inasmuch the early church was about to undergo great persecution, those who understood the message of this Revelation must have been encouraged and strengthened to endure the challenges ahead.

Numbers used in Revelation are almost all symbolic, and the true meanings of those symbols were most assuredly understood by those conversant in the apochryphal style. The best we can do is estimate the exact meaning of those symbols, but we can know that 144,000 doesn't refer to the exact number. God did not predetermine that there would be exactly 144,000 saved -- not 144,001, not 143,999.

Similarly, an earthly reign of 1,000 years is symbolic. It does not mean that Christ will return and reign on this earth (what a horrible place to have to rule) for 365,000 days, not a day more or less.

Finally, and then I'll bow out of this, because I can't in good conscience continue this discussion on a thread labeled by political parties, let me ask you this.

What is the meaning of "shortly" and "at hand"?

Revelation 1
1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;..."

3 "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."

I believe that the primary purpose of Revelation was to prepare the christians of the early church for the tribulations that they were shortly to endure, and that most of the prophecies have already been fulfilled. Furthermore, the prohecies of Daniel led up to the establishment of Christ's church, the Kingdom that crushed all the kingdoms before, and that will last forever. The European Union is not prohpesied in scripture.

 

[Super 80]

Thanks for that quote. I have never noticed that before, and it explains the prophecy of how the gospel must be preached to all nations first. I thought that literally, man had to go out to every tribe/nation etc.

As far as signs before the end times, what do you think this one is?

Mark 13

14"When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation'[1] standing where it[2] does not belong--let the reader understand--then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Matthew 24

15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'[1] spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand-- 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Is the above where people come up with the idea that the Jewish temple must be rebuilt? If not, where does that prophecy come from?

Yes, and this is where Daniel forms much of the foundation of end time study. The references back to Daniel have only three places where the "abomination that causes desolation" is used in the Hebrew, DAN 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11. Of a minor note, each usage of what we see as "abomination that causes desolation" is slightly modified in the original language with prefixes and suffixes that delineate specific information beyond what we see in the English.

Daniel 9:27 lays the basis for timing as this abomination (the word is in the plural in the Hebrew) that causes desolation (the word for desolate has a prefix which makes it a noun and it is the same word that is repeated at the end of the verse) as happening at the mid-week point. Jesus then says that the sun/moon/star event foretold from old happens after this mid-week point. The events initiated with opening the sixth Seal are the same and this is the first of any of the seven seals can be linked time-wise to the seventieth 'seven' from Daniel 9:24-27.

Second, the mention of "abomination that causes desolation" in Daniel 11:31 has abomination preceded by an article suggesting a specific abomination and the word is singular. The word for desolation is identical though. The account of Daniel 11:5-30 describes a generational war between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. The verses 11:31 and 11:32 describe Antiochus Epiphanies of 168 B.C. Antiochus is the last of line of Kings from the North, the Seleucids. Here he sets up a statue of Zeus in the Temple in Jerusalem. (You can read about this time in Josephus and the Book of Maccabees.)

The setting up of the idol statue in the Temple by Antiochus serves as pivot point where the vision in Daniel shifts focus to an even greater abomination as with Daniel 9:27 (one reason a Hebrew word is in the plural is to show how great it is). This is called dual focus and there are several other instances where this can be shown to occur in prophecy. Verses 11:36-39 describe the antichrist and verses 11:40-45 tell a linear story of his actions. The actions of 11:45 relate to the Holy Mountain which in the Old Testament refers as a place only to the mountain that Jerusalem sits on. That's why the events of 11:45 can be said to correspond with Luke 21:20.

Paul also says at this antichrist will set himself up in the Temple in 2TH 2:4 and proclaim himself to be God. This is the strongest reference and so validates the reference back to Daniel from the Gospel accounts Jesus mentioned twenty or more years previously.

Now you would be right to note there is no Temple and the Romans destroyed Herod's Temple in the first century. But prophecy does foretell about a temple that will be built in Ezekiel 40:1-43:9. This is the Temple that the antichrist will occupy. The man who measures it is John in Rev 11:1-2. Ezekiel records his observations.

Since the seventieth 'seven' starts only with the covenant with many, meaning from Israel (as she is the focus of Daniel 9:24-27 - and the theme of Daniel is God's authority over the Nations) one of the things that might be accomplished with that peace treaty is the rebuilding of the Temple on the Temple Mount currently occupied by the Rock of the Dome mosque. (The wailing wall is part of the outside wall of the old Temple.) You can see how delicately balanced this peace treaty will have to be. Now as to what will motivate the Israelites to build the Temple again and be willing to deal for peace is a matter of conjecture. I'll just ask though, what would happen if they ever found the Ark of the Covenant Jeremiah hid from the Babylonians?

So this is where people say the Temple must be rebuilt. Jesus refers back to Daniel with a similar occurrence of an idol in the Temple, Paul states it will happen in the future outright, John has measured it and Ezekiel provides the details on what it will look like.

 

[Super 80]

Re: Re: by way of explanation on a small point

Tony,

I'm going to edit out much just to shorten the post length.

They did not serve in different vineyards or devise their own style of "obeying" the Master.

I didn't say they did, all I am saying with the parable of the workers is that the reward for obeying God is the same.

Please don't be offended by my use of the word style - I got it from you, as you described the style of worship at Sardis and Philadelphia. I got the impression you believe worshipping in the style of the Philadelphia church will give you immunity from the "surprise factor" of judgment day.

I came up with "style" yesterday as word to describe what I see as different types of Churches as delineated by Jesus. Maybe that's not the right word. But I think there are different types of worshippers. I think someone who worships God for an hour on Sunday but lives the rest of their life as a non-believer is in serious jeopardy and THAT I think is the lesson of Luke 12:42-47 and the Church of Sardis.

Again, the common thread between the faithful servant and the unfaithful servant is neither knows the hour that the Master returns. Indeed, the one who served faithfully will be rewarded, and the one who does not the Master's will will be punished. To the former, the second coming will be a pleasant surprise, and to the latter, a fearful surprise. Yet to both, it will be a surprise. You're telling me there's no chance that the surprise can occur today. That doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not saying it won't be a surprise. No one knows the day or the hour. But Jesus said "when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door." -MT 24:33. All I can know is when it is near. I am not putting together events from my own understanding but from the Bible from what God has given us so we would know.

I'm trying to make sure I understand what you're saying before I respond, and I feel like I'm treading on shaky ground here. Am I to believe that you think the apochryphal style of writing does not contain symbolism, metaphors, and allusions? (Not illusions, allusions.)

No I am responding directly to the assumption that Revelation is "chocked full of symbolism and mystery" as you said. While there is figures of speech, a systematic study of phrases and symbols can show how they could be rendered in plainer speech. And much of Revelation provides answers for symbols as visions are explained. So I reject the notion that no one can make heads or tails of this book. We should not be afraid of prophecy just because it talks about a scary time.

Furthermore, I am not ready to say every literal number must be taken literally. However, the Greek is much more precise than the Hebrew in rendering numbers. While there are symbolic meanings that can be attached to numbers such as the repetition of twelve with the tribes, John is as accurate as a person of his time and culture could be said to be. While a literal reading is not always supported, neither is every number figurative. So I don't agree with your assessment that almost every number in Revelation is symbolic. The idea that nothing is as it says, or that it's all a mystery goes against the very introduction of the book as revelation which means literally to reveal.

The first lesson in the book of Revelation is the very name coming from apokalypsis, in the simplest translation it means revelation, and derives from apokalypto meaning to uncover, reveal.—Theological Dictionary of the New Testament p.405. The beauty of this book is that it reveals mysteries rather than couch every vision in just symbols, and moreover it also provides an explanation for the symbols used in the vision.

What is the meaning of "shortly" and "at hand"?

How would John be presenting this prophecy if he said that it concerns a time far in the future and not to worry about it? Why didn't God just tell us the date He set so we'd know? To each of us, the Rapture will be as close as our death. To each of us we are to live though as if Christ were returning now, because our being caught up with Him can happen literally at any moment or haven't you known someone who died suddenly? To say a thousand years doesn't mean a thousand years but the figure of speech 'at hand' means it is going to occur then ignores the greater indications that events enumerated in Revelation are still in our future.

The lesson for the end time prophecy is to know God has a plan already for Christ's return. He also reveals that Christ will rule the nations on the Earth. Our duty is to live as this were to happen right now, because if we delay in living a Godly life, it might be too late. Since God loves us and wants what is best for us, instilling an imminent expectation for the believer works in their behalf.

I believe that the primary purpose of Revelation was to prepare the christians of the early church for the tribulations that they were shortly to endure, and that most of the prophecies have already been fulfilled. Furthermore, the prohecies of Daniel led up to the establishment of Christ's church, the Kingdom that crushed all the kingdoms before, and that will last forever. The European Union is not prohpesied in scripture.

The Church has not crushed all the Kingdoms. Man still rules the Nations or do you think the Nations act in accordance with God? The rock that smashes Nebuchadnezzar's statue introduces a time when Christ physically rules on Earth. While we have victory through Christ's death and resurrection, the devil is still very much at work in this world. I have a host of verses from the Gospel through the Epistles that establish that statement as fact.

This kind of thinking that the Church has crushed all other Kingdoms came about with the State-Church of Rome under Constantine and the writing of St. Augustine and represents the Amillennial point of view. If you want to say when Revelation takes place, you must take it with the whole of Scripture.

I think you're making a mistake in interpreting the Beasts of Daniel 7 on a one for one basis with the parts of Nebuchadnezzar's statue though. Although you are right, the EU is not mentioned by name in Scripture.

 

[doh]

Okay, I'll take a crack at this religion thing in the spirit of debate. We all face our time of tribulation here on earth. I am not the apocalypse now kind of guy. You face your trials here as best you can, ask His forgivness when you need it (most of the time in my case) and believe in the lord and then what ever happens you deal with that. It's really pretty simple for us christians. Grace through faith, period. I ain't smart enough for the rest of that stuff so I'll just let Him work it out. As far as the catholic church goes, I am guilty of letting the institution run without my over sight too much. I am trying to fix that by letting them know my money is going to other charities in the Tampa Bay area until they get better lay over sight. I'm junior, so I'm not here on sunday very often. But there are plenty of catholics who would do a fine job of looking over shoulders if given the chance. Just because the officials have fallen down on the job doesn't mean His word is no longer valid. There, that's all the smarter I am.

 

[Timebuilder]

Timebuilder,

Would the "child molesters" you are talking about include the Roman Catholic priests? Aren't these the same people who were "spreading the word of God" at the same time they were molesting children? Are these not the same people who were judging others as "satan worshippers" or "evil-doers" in public, while molesting children behind closed doors?

While we're on the subject of religion, doesn't "organized" religion itself cause war among different peoples? I mean all one has to do is look at Israel/Palestine or 9/11 to understand this fact.

Actually, when I wrote this passage I was thinking of another group, but when I read it later I realized just how this might appear to be aimed at the priests. As for whether of not they "spread the word of God", I'm divided. I believe that most priests are convinced they are in the right, but the truth is the Bible speaks against the kind of structure that is part and parcel of the Catholic church. I view the Bible as being the Word of God, and the Catholic church does not encourage its folowers to either learn, or even read the Bible. I'd probably be happier with the non-molesting priests if they were indeed taking on satan and his minions instead of holding bingo nights.

While organized religion CAN cause war among peoples, the larger reason is ignorance of God's will and his Word. Think about it: if the Palestinians and the Israelis decided to accept Christ's sacrifice, identifying Jesus as the Messiah of the old testament, then the conflict would immediately stop and we would have no terrorist problem if other Muslims followed suit.

It is the lack of agrement among Men, fostered by satan who exploits our weaknesses, that is the reason for these so-callede "religious" conflicts. In reality, they spring from an ignorance of God by Men and the politics of the secular world.

God knows how this paradox will be resolved, and he has laid it out for us in a somewhat circuitious and mysterious manner in Biblical prophecy. Somehow, a purpose that we do not fully understand is at work here as these events unfold. Could it be simpler if God were to suddenly appear to all of us right now and stop the world like in a science fiction movie, with Klaatu the robot at His side? Sure it would. But that would not alow us to have the opportunity to seek Him and become faithful rather than obediant to His visible image. He has a plan, and His will be done.

 

[UpNDownGuy]

STOP!

I view the Bible as being the Word of God, and the Catholic church does not encourage its folowers to either learn, or even read the Bible.

I won't waste my time debating this absurd statement. You clearly know less than zero about the Catholic faith. I am merely writing to inform you that, as a lifelong Catholic, I find your statements concerning my Church incredibly offensive. Please confine your remarks to some other topic.

 

[AeroBoy]

I still stand by my statement that organized religion causes factions and war. And this applies to both those that do and don't believe in the Bible. Anyone remember the Crusades? 9/11? Etc....

The fact is that not everyone believes what the Bible says. That is everyone's individual right. It's when we think that our way is the right way (ie-organized religion) and try to convert everyone else to our way of thinking does the factions start.

All one has to do is look at the Catholics, Presbysterians and Protestants. They all believe in the Bible, but they all see things very differently. And they all feel that their way is the right way (Catholics more so on this issue). Then there's the whole Catholicism vs Muslim vs Jewish vs Hindu vs atheist thing I'm not even going to touch with a 1,000-foot pole.

Only when we stop pushing our own religious beliefs down other people's throats will war really stop.

 

[Timebuilder]

You clearly know less than zero about the Catholic faith. I am merely writing to inform you that, as a lifelong Catholic, I find your statements concerning my Church incredibly offensive.

First, you have no idea about the experience I have had with Catholic doctrine, do you? You don't know about my knowlege of the Balitmore Catechism, or the conversations I have had with priests, parishoners, and lay teachers.

I find the misleading of millions of people incredibly offensive. I find the attitude that only the church can interpret scripture offensive. I find the abuse of untold numbers of children offensive. I find the placement of works in place of grace through faith offensive, as if contribution to a CYO fund will curry favor with God. I find the damage done to the cause of Christ by events like the Spanish Inquisition offensive.

But most of all, I find that you failed to mention faith in Christ offensive. I think you might be putting your faith in the Church instead. That is a mistake.

 

[Super 80]

Originally by AeroBoy:
Only when we stop pushing our own religious beliefs down other people's throats will war really stop.

Now this is ridiculous. Presenting reasons for belief is not imposing a view on anyone.

Religious wars are not the leading cause of death due to war either. The various political factions of totalitarianism assembled under the humanist perspective like communism and socialism have killed far more and made the 20th century the bloodiest ever.

Furthermore, God does not instigate war, men do. And you while you can point to a host of religious wars involving Christianity, the common factor through history is one of defense.

The one religion that does impose itself on people at the point of a sword is Islam though. And they deny basic freedoms when their religion is the basis for their government.

While there are profound differences even between Christians, the point is there are different demominations with different outlooks and theological foundations. In the end, however, they are united in one thing that is the belief in Christ Jesus as the only means of Salvation.

All the religions in the world make exclusive claims. They cannot all be right, and they may all be wrong. But one thing is different about Christianity. While all the other religions say what you must do to enter 'heaven' only Christianity says it's all been done, and now all you have to do is to put your faith in the One whom God sent.

The results of which have made life-changing benefits for millions that have come to accept and believe in Jesus.

 

[Timebuilder]

the Catholic church does not encourage its followers to either learn, or even read the Bible.

Almost forgot.

I have never found a bible in a Catholic home. If you have one, that's great. Read it. Learn it. Then, compare the attitude of the priests that questioned Christ in the temple to the church structure today. You will, I think, see an eerie similarity to the Saducees and the Pharisees of Christ's time, rather than the apostles or the followers of Christ.

Once, I asked why there was no Bible in a home that purported to be a Christian home. I was told that the Church was the center of their spiritual life, and they didn't need a Bible. In fact, the Christian life centers around one's relationship with Jesus through faith in Him and knowlege of His Word. Once you spend time reading the Bible, you find a stark reality: we are never encourged to pray to ANYONE except God, not "saints", not Mary, no one else. There is not one directive from the Catechism in the Bible. In fact, I have covered the prohibition against repetitive prayers, such as the Our Father and Hail Mary in Matthew 6:7

And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

Instead of being offended at what I say, ask yourself this: "am I offended by what Christ says?"

This is a personal spiritual crisis for many "lifelong Catholics". May God help you to see His light.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I knew any discussion of Republicans and Democrats would turn into a holy war eventually.

 

[Timebuilder]

When I was a democrat, government was my religion. It was a false religion, but it was a religion, none the less.

 

[surfnole]

I view the Bible as being the Word of God, and the Catholic church does not encourage its folowers to either learn, or even read the Bible.

I won't waste my time debating this absurd statement. You clearly know less than zero about the Catholic faith. I am merely writing to inform you that, as a lifelong Catholic, I find your statements concerning my Church incredibly offensive. Please confine your remarks to some other topic.

I agree with TimeBuilder on this one, although my views aren't as stringent. The Catholic church is a Christian church, but they don't emphasize bible study. I side with the protestant/reformed view on doctrinal issues.

I grew up in the Catholic church and my mom is Catholic and a Christian. Wasn't it as recently as the 1950s that the Catholic church stopped having mass in Latin? If they really wanted the masses to know the bible, why would the mass be in Latin?

The center of the Catholic church is the eucharist (communion), not bible study, prayer, fellowship or preaching. As long as you take the eucharist each week, you are golden.

If Catholic priests taught the Bible, there wouldn't be so many Catholics that oppose positions held by the pope, the bible and the church authority. Positions such as pro abortion, the belief in reincarnation (which my mom believes), the belief in in several paths to god etc.

At our local parish, the weekly sermon was not an exposition of the scriptures, but often a statement on various social issues of the day.

I will give credit to the Catholic church in this however, their *official* position on moral issues has not bent to the latest trends and opinions in society. I wish I could say the same for the mainline protestant churches or many of the Catholic parishioners.

 

[Timebuilder]

I have to agree with much of what you have said, also. The church structure seems to keep the parishoner at arm's length, almost under the authority of the church. Believers in Bible churchs see the leadership as being with them, not over them.

I don't hate my Catholic friends. I love them like a brother. This is also true of my liberal friends. If you care about someone, you want to share all you can about the insights you have gained by prayer, introspection, and experience. Christ commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this is true no matter the subject. I care too much about America, her people, and what we stand for as a nation "under God" to fail to share these ideas. Since we are still a somewhat free country, you are free to gain from them or ignore them, as it suits you.

In any event, it is a waste of time to be upset or offended with me. If anything, be offended at what people have done to our country, and how some are misleading people, drawing them away from God's word.

 

[UpNDownGuy]

I am finished with this...

Timebuilder: You are right, it is pointless for me to be upset or offended by you. I have met you and your kind many, many times. In fact, I live right next door to you. My neighbors are "good Christians", as they like to tell everyone in earshot. He is a career military officer; she is a schoolteacher. They have rousing sing-alongs at all hours of the night, religiously attend church and bible study, and routinely plaster my front door with advertisements for their church. Their son is ten years old, and is easily the biggest troublemaker in the neighborhood. As such a good "Christian", he feels that God wants him to punish the wicked children (always much younger and smaller, of course) by beating them up if they happen to be of another faith. He also feels compelled to tell adults which ones will be going to hell (In case you're curious, my sister-in-law IS going to hell, but apparently I'm not. The fact that I'm a fairly large man may have something to do with his withholding his opinion in my case, as this little monster is a coward through and through). He didn't get these ideas by himself. His loving "Christian" parents taught him this hate and intolerence. It's quite clear they often discuss these topics as a family. "The Jews are hellbound; it's ok to beat up their kids". "Those Oriental kids don't go to our church; push him in the mud". You would feel right at home with these people.


You are a "Christian" for exactly the same reasons, and with exactly as much legitimacy, as David Duke. For folks like you, the Bible isn't the inspired Word of God. It's a club, to be used to beat your opponents, or anyone else who dares to hold a conflicting opinion or worship at a different church. "The Bible says we can kill all blacks, I just know it does. God revealed His plan for an all-white America to me in a dream..."



But most of all, I find that you failed to mention faith in Christ offensive. I think you might be putting your faith in the Church instead.

You didn't attack my personal belief in Jesus. You chose to attack the church at which I worship. I am real certain I can guess what denomination you are, but I am not going to stoop to attacking your church. That would do a genuine disservice to the real Christians who, through no fault of their own, just happen to share the same denomination with you. I will let you in a little Bible trivia though. It's something you apparently missed in your exhaustive, scholary reading. It's called the "Teachings of Christ", and it's contained in a part of the Bible called the New Testament. It might be worth your while to go over, and see if there isn't some way to apply some of his teachings to your daily life, because it's obvious you skipped over that part. Especially concentrate on "casting of stones"...see if you can find where Jesus mentions casting the first stone. Think of it as a Biblical "Where's Waldo?". I think you'll find it applicable to your life.

I don't know what happened to you to make you like you are today. You are bitter, opinionated, intolerant and hateful, with no sign of charity whatsoever. I feel sorry for you, quite honestly. In any event, I am through wasting my time writing to you, or reading anything that you post. I quite honestly have better things to do with my time.







Surfnole: I am curious in what crazy parish you grew up in...I have never heard of such things. Pro-abortion priests? Are you kidding? Let me answer some of the points you raised:



I grew up in the Catholic church and my mom is Catholic and a Christian. Wasn't it as recently as the 1950s that the Catholic church stopped having mass in Latin? If they really wanted the masses to know the bible, why would the mass be in Latin?


Yes, the Mass was in Latin. And everbody spoke Latin. My Dad and Mom both learned Latin before they were nine years old. Under the old system, you could go into any Catholic church anywhere in the world and still understand the Mass.



The center of the Catholic church is the eucharist (communion), not bible study, prayer, fellowship or preaching. As long as you take the eucharist each week, you are golden.


Again, my experience was a little different. We had 1 hour of Bible study every day in school (In addition to Mass). If you didn't go to the Catholic school, you had Cathecism classes to make up for it. As you can imagine, we tended to pray quite a lot in school. As for fellowship, haven't you heard of the CYO? My summers were spent going to camps, outings, hiking...you name it. I was in two different parishes growing up, and both were led by dynamic priests. In my church today, the opportunities are endless. Everything from hosting a pancake breakfast (which I am next month) to dinners and dances, weekly prayer meetings, singles events, etc. As for the last sentence, There is quite a bit more to being "golden" than simply going to Mass once a week, as I'm sure you understand.


At our local parish, the weekly sermon was not an exposition of the scriptures, but often a statement on various social issues of the day.


Again, all I can give you is my experience. I am now in my 7th parish. In my current parish, and virtually the same with the previous ones, the priest uses the sermon to apply the Gospel to our everyday lives. He usually tries to explain what God means, and then gives examples of how to best make our way. In other words, don't walk out the door on Sunday, and on Monday do exactly what God doesn't want you to do.


I am sorry your experience was so bizarre. I can't account for it, but I can assure you it isn't the usual one.

Take care.

 

[414Flyer]

Re: I am finished with this...

Timebuilder:

You are a "Christian" for exactly the same reasons, and with exactly as much legitimacy, as David Duke. For folks like you, the Bible isn't the inspired Word of God. It's a club, to be used to beat your opponents, or anyone else who dares to hold a conflicting opinion or worship at a different church. "The Bible says we can kill all blacks, I just know it does. God revealed His plan for an all-white America to me in a dream..."

(snip)

I don't know what happened to you to make you like you are today. You are bitter, opinionated, intolerant and hateful, with no sign of charity whatsoever. I feel sorry for you, quite honestly. In any event, I am through wasting my time writing to you, or reading anything that you post. I quite honestly have better things to do with my time.

Now come on, dont you think you took the rhetoric a bit far?
You have accused him of hate, made comparisons with David Duke, intolerance, racism, and about everything else.

Big deal..every demonination has disagreements of doctrine and structure with the others, its what separates them.

I am mostly agnostic, but I call it as I see it. I respect him and his passion for his beliefs. But I think all the labels you apply to him are not only wrong, but irresponsible. I do not think he has said anything like that..Just expressed his views.

Just because you might have crappy neighbors who are like the Flanders on meth, doesnt mean Timebuilder is that way.

 

[mar]

Perhaps an incomplete experience

UpandDownGuy--if you're still here. I share your frustration with the intolerance of others.

But I'm not sure I would characterize Surfnole's experience with the Catholic church as "bizarre". Incomplete perhaps.

After all, one shouldn't receive communion without first making a confession. I think this point is a fairly important one when comparing and contrasting Protestant and Catholic doctrine.

The *fundamental* difference as I see it is the role of the priest as vicar, the confessional and the communion. These just don't exist in Protestant-style Christianity.

By the way, has it ever occcured to anyone that Jesus was in fact a Liberal? A revolutionary? A heretic?

He was such a threat to the established order that it wasn't enough to kill him. No, they mocked him with his crown of thorns, the King of Jews, as he died on the cross.

How typical of most martyrs.

Yes, a little more tolerance would be much appreciated.

 

[fLYbUDDY]

Re: Perhaps an incomplete experience

By the way, has it ever occcured to anyone that Jesus was in fact a Liberal? A revolutionary? A heretic?

He was such a threat to the established order that it wasn't enough to kill him. No, they mocked him with his crown of thorns, the King of Jews, as he died on the cross.

Yeah it has occurred to me. It has also occurred to me not to label Jesus with a modern political philosophy. Was he a liberal? You could validly argue this. Was he a conservative? You could validly argue that. Alls I know is He was God coming down to the level of human flesh and then was rejected by most of his creation. As is the case in much of the world today. And Jesus is also God's hand being extended to us (in our own environment as a fleshly being), available for whoever wants to grab onto it. That is who Jesus is/was.

 

[Timebuilder]

Timebuilder: You are right, it is pointless for me to be upset or offended by you. I have met you and your kind many, many times.

Ah, I see. Instead of dealing with what I wrote in an insightful and engaging manner, you are going to attempt to assassinate my character. This is called an ad hominum attack, and it usually happens when you have little of substance and a great deal of anger.

Any reasonable person already knows that your comments regarding David Duke and Jews, Blacks, and Asians have nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible of Christianity. If you neighbor's child is causing trouble in the neighborhood, call the police. Do the same if your neighbors are disturbing the peace after hours.

I don't know what happened to you to make you like you are today. You are bitter, opinionated, intolerant and hateful, with no sign of charity whatsoever. I feel sorry for you, quite honestly. In any event, I am through wasting my time writing to you, or reading anything that you post. I quite honestly have better things to do with my time.

My friend this is a lot of hatred that you have to deal with. Either you have not read my posts or you are clinging to a preconceived idea of what a Christian believes. If you attend some kind of a church, ANY kind, I recommend you get counseling. Failing that, I recommend you sit down with the pastor of a Bible church and at least get your facts straight. I am embarassed for you.

 

[mar]

I didn't say he was a Democrat!

Hey Flybuddy--Thanks for at least giving the concept a shot.

But, the word 'liberal' is just a word. It's not a modern political philosophy, ok?

I admit, I shouldn't have capitalized it in my previous post.

 

[Timebuilder]

By the way, has it ever occcured to anyone that Jesus was in fact a Liberal? A revolutionary? A heretic?

I'm sure these thoughts have occured to a great many people. However, if they are focused on these questions, they are missing who He really was.

God, the Son.

 

[Super 80]

Re: Perhaps an incomplete experience

I share your frustration with the intolerance of others.

Being able to see things in black and white, and to be able to decide what is right and wrong on a Biblical basis still allows someone to be quite tolerant of diverse opinions.

But I'm not sure I would characterize Surfnole's experience with the Catholic church as "bizarre". Incomplete perhaps.

After all, one shouldn't receive communion without first making a confession. I think this point is a fairly important one when comparing and contrasting Protestant and Catholic doctrine.

The *fundamental* difference as I see it is the role of the priest as vicar, the confessional and the communion. These just don't exist in Protestant-style Christianity.

While I have serveral criticisms of the Catholic Church, as a vehicle to find Jesus, people still can find Him in worship there. However, some doctrines can detract from the commands God does give us for our worship.

If any Catholic is interested you can 'pm' me and maybe we can have a discussion.

By the way, has it ever occcured to anyone that Jesus was in fact a Liberal? A revolutionary? A heretic?

He was such a threat to the established order that it wasn't enough to kill him. No, they mocked him with his crown of thorns, the King of Jews, as he died on the cross.

How typical of most martyrs.

Yes, a little more tolerance would be much appreciated.

From a Bible basis, I have a real problem with painting Christ as a political entitiy. Christ overcame the world, even before He went to the cross. He was not of the world and said to give to Caesar (the political ruler of the day) what was his and to give to God what was His.

Jesus did not start a revolt in the flesh. He was not what the Pharisees thought because they confused the Messiah of the Second Advent with Jesus' coming. That is why Jesus stopped reading Isaiah 61:2 in mid-sentence at the start of His ministy in Luke. Now when the Day of the Lord begins, lookout.

Jesus was NOT a heretic. As a matter of fact, He observed the Scriptures and He did not sin. Jesus maintained that Scripture could not be broken and so stayed true to the Scripture which was in large part the Law and the Prophets. But beyond any measure of the 613 commandments in the Old Testament, Jesus knew the heart of the issue was love.

So if you want to have more tolerance, that is fine, but I will not tolerate this heretical teaching of Jesus as a worldly person bent on physical domination against Scripture.

 

[Timebuilder]

While I have serveral criticisms of the Catholic Church, as a vehicle to find Jesus, people still can find Him in worship there. However, some doctrines can detract from the commands God does give us for our worship.

The danger is believing in a works based salvation, which does not exist, instead of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If you believe that you will go to heaven because you go to confession, take communion, attend mass, light candles, or any other such thing, then you are just plain wrong in that assumption. Christ himself specifically laid out the plan of salvation. You can accept that plan while sitting in a Catholic church, but no more so than while waiting for the number one train at Penn Station. Don't let the incense and prayers distract you from this most important point.

 

[Super 80]

The danger is believing in a works based salvation, which does not exist, instead of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Yes, this is true. Paul wrote about the futility of having salvation based on works and rejected it on the basis that no one could boast how they earned their way into Heaven.

Salvation is granted by faith. It is because Abraham believed what God had said that he gained eternal life. We will see him in his glorifed body during Christ's reign on earth.

But while John laid out Christ's words that by faith you will be saved, and Paul said if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart you will be saved. and James the half-brother to Jesus (oops) said a faith without works is dead.

Are these at odds?

No.

If you believe in God, and believe in the One He sent then you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and that will affect your life because you are no longer a slave to sin, but are a bond-servant to Christ and you will give up the ways of the world you were called out of and adopt Godly living.

Will you be perfect as Jesus commanded us to be to earn our way into Heaven? No.

Because it is not by works that you are saved, less any one boast.

The measure of a Christian is not how perfect they are, but how far they have come from where they were.

If you have faith in God and love Jesus, what you will do will change as you reflect the light that is within you and let it shine for all the world to see and so your faith will be manifest.

The son that does as the father says is the son that follows his father's commands--MT 21:28-31.

 

[mar]

For Super 80 and Timebuilder

Super 80--As I responded to Flybuddy, I was merely using the term 'liberal' rhetorically. Like you I think it would be inappropriate to put modern political labels on Christ.

And on second thought perhaps 'heretic' was not the best choice of words--it's inaccurate at best.

But I have also given some thought on Jesus as a sinner and have decided to not even push that issue because as we've all learned recently one just cannot argue with another's faith in the word of the Bible.

I mean, forget about how Jesus lost his temper with the money changers and certain aspects of his relationship with Mary Magdalene.

After a brief internet search on these topics I concluded that the faithful will always be able to assign some redemptive value to any perceived flaw of Christ by the skeptic.

Therefore, I appreciate your sincere response to my post.

And Timebuilder, what can I say that hasn't already been said except that works of art by the faithful only serve to glorify god and the church.

Of course both you and I can find exceptions to that statement.

But for me it's fairly easy to identify the truly righteous and the work they produce out of passion as opposed to those who are so uncertain of their time on Earth that they pass a lifetime manufacturing points to cash in at the Eleventh Hour.

I'm sorry that you cannot study a work like the Pieta' or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and not see anything more than the result of someone who was trying to cash in his chips at the Eleventh Hour.

Even I, the bold-faced skeptic, can let down my guard for just a few minutes and be humbled by the works of a man endowed with such a talent that he spent a lifetime dedicated to telling the story of Christ in the most beautiful way he could.

If only more of us could manage such refinement.

Have a look and tell me this is a selfish work.

The Pieta by Michelangelo Buonarroti