Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

[Preacher ✝]

Bread and wine, I am unaware of any denominations that do it any other way.

Baptists use grape juice because they believe alcohol is sinful. because they're retards

 

[Derrick]

@Derrick
You repeatedly ignore the verses I’ve posted and cite the same three. Please explain to me how the verses I have cited point to your understanding.

I apologize if I came off that way, my point was, though I guess I didn't explain it very well, I didn't think the verses you cited were 100% relevant to what I was saying (unless I'm completely missing your point). Yes, We should not judge others (Matthew 7:1-6, Luke 6:37-42) and yes God is just as the passage from Roman's explain. However as I previously stated to you I am not casting judgement or condemning others, I am telling you what God says, did he give me some special knowledge? No I am related what he says in the Bible I do not consider that judgemental at all in fact I'm just repeating his words back. As for justice, is saving those who know and accept him not just? I didn't think it bears repeating from earlier in the thread but as I said when the discussion began Universalism is not justice, God explains what his views of judgement are. What his views of justice are and they can be found in the three verses I keep repeating.

I'm sorry if my post came across as dismissive or prideful, as a Christian I should have been more respectful and given you a more detailed post explaining my positions.

Baptists use grape juice because they believe alcohol is sinful

I understand the nobility of their goal, reducing alcoholism, however Jesus's consumption of wine should dispel the idea that the Bible bans wine.

I think all "grape juice" in Jesus's era would have fermented into wine just with how they kept it back in the day.

 

[Preacher ✝]

I understand the nobility of their goal, reducing alcoholism,

Ironically many Baptists are well versed in the practice of pretending not to see each other at the liquor store.

Now when you say bread and wine, who do you share it with? You're non-denominational so I'm genuinely curious who you break bread with.

EDIT: almost forgot about this gem

 

[Thomas Talus]

Ironically many Baptists are well versed in the practice of pretending not to see each other at the liquor store.

I don't remember the full joke, but it usually goes: "Baptists don't recognize the authority of the pope, [part I forget, probably some doctrine], or each other at the liquor store."

 

[Irish Turtle]

What is your opinion on gnosticsm and how would you debunk it

 

[Derrick]

Ironically many Baptists are well versed in the practice of pretending not to see each other at the liquor store.

Old Baptist Joke:
Q: why is it unwise to take only one baptist fishing with you?
A: If you take only one, he will drink all your beer. You need at least two to have the beer all to yourself

Side note, we do give out non-alcoholic wine (essentially Grape Juice with extra steps) to pregnant woman, it's what my wifes been doing. It might be theologically wrong but when it's your kid in there you'll want to go the non alcoholic route as well.

You're non-denominational so I'm genuinely curious who you break bread with.

Probably the same people you break bread with, my church congregation (just I assume you have communion with your Parish).

 

[Preacher ✝]

What is your opinion on gnosticsm and how would you debunk it

I could write up a scathing indictment of the gnostic heresy but Bishop Barron did it better.

Old Baptist Joke:
Q: why is it unwise to take only one baptist fishing with you?
A: If you take only one, he will drink all your beer. You need at least two to have the beer all to yourself

Yea thats a classic.

Probably the same people you break bread with, my church congregation (just I assume you have communion with your Parish).

Not all non-denominationals have a church congregation. If you're all non-denominational how do you decide who is or is not part of the communion? Do you all agree on your interpretations? If so does that not in a way constitute being part of a denomination thats just unnamed?

 

[Derrick]

Not all non-denominationals have a church congregation

When you hear non-denominational it's easy to think that we basically are apathetic Christians who roll out of bed wearing Jeans and thsirts to church, in fact it's nothing like that (at least for myself) we're just people who haven't a denomination which we think fits with scripture.

If you're all non-denominational how do you decide who is or is not part of the communion? Do you all agree on your interpretations?

To answer your question in another way I have yet to find a 'denomination' I 100% agree with and think is without errors, so I found a non-denominational church with a statement of Faith and list of beliefs on their website I agree with. If they did something or started teaching something I found heretical I would leave and find a new church, it's not a big deal for me as I'm not married to the denomination or Church but to the Bible. If you agree with our church's teachings you're welcome at communion. Does everyone? I can't say for certain, than again how can you say everyone who takes communion at your mass is in 100% agreement with your Church's teachings or even a Catholic?

If so does that not in a way constitute being part of a denomination thats just unnamed?

Maybe, if you want to look at us as a 100 person strong denomination, than I guess you can. We're not in any sort of relationship/communion with another church though. I'm not opposed to belonging to a denomination, I just haven't found one I agree totally with, everyone I've found has Biblical errors in it.

 

[Preacher ✝]

I can't say for certain, than again how can you say everyone who takes communion at your mass is in 100% agreement with your Church's teachings or even a Catholic?

The Church is more focused on its mission to provide the Eucharist to the faithful. They would rather hand it out to 100 non-believers than risk one faithful Catholic missing out.

Honestly a bigger problem is what I call Buffet Catholics, though this is an issue in every denomination. People who pick and choose which parts of the theology they believe based on their own feelings and desires.

Which brings me to:

I just haven't found one I agree totally with

I don't want to harp on this too long but I find this approach to faith arrogant and prideful. I believe I have the right to say that because during my period of discernment before deciding to return to the Catholic Church I briefly entertained the idea of finding or starting what's known as a Cowboy Christian Church (basically a non-denominational church with a western/frontier flare) but the more I thought about it the more I realized I was just bringing God down to my level. Case in point had I gone through with that plan one of the tenants of that church would have been akin to codifying second amendment rights as a religious belief. I was being arrogant and prideful, wanting religion to serve my purposes and be tailored to me, thinking I had knew it all, I had it right and everyone else was wrong.

But that's not how it should be. We should be humbling ourselves and embracing the fact that religion should challenge us to be better, to be more like Christ, to abandon vanity and pride, and to do so in his name for our own good.

 

[Rendang]

Jesus doesn't ask you to yearn to understand him he says you must believe in him... the Bible doesn't ask you to believe in 'God' (as in the Father) it's asking that you specifically accept the Son, Jesus, as your savior.

This is precisely why it's extraordinarily rare for philosophers to find God; how they believe often only reaches to producing a set of laws that naturally end in failure (Confucianism). There are very few who do believe in a benevolent God, but they can only describe riddles of him (Heraclitus). It is difficult to comprehend a benevolent God who is both merciful and just.

The strongest argument for a philosopher in believing in a Christian God is found in ancient Taoism, (most of these arguments comes from Christ the Eternal Tao by Hieromonk Damascene), as Lao Tzu shockingly was able to deduce many Christian beliefs:

A benevolent being (The Tao, or the way) exists, and it initially created a perfect world of harmony before humanity corrupted it. Thus, to return to natural harmony, one would have to surrender to the Tao and follow it's teachings.

The beliefs of the Tao often parallel to Jesus' teachings & acts:

1. "He who has little shall receive in abundance,/ but he who has much shall be confused."
2. "In order to be above the people,/ The sage must serve them as if he were lower than them/ In order to guide them he must put himself behind them."
3. "The hard and mighty shall be laid low,/ and the humble and weak shall be exalted."
4. "Lofty virtue is like an empty valley."
5. "The violent man shall die a violent death,/ I consider this as my chief teaching."
6. "He who aims at life achieves death.../the holy man cares nothing for himself and yet he is preserved,/ is it not because he has no selfish desires that he is able to succeed?"
7. "For the Way leads to eternity,/ And though your body ceases, you will not be destroyed."

Even the Tao's nature points to self-sufficiency; Lao Tzu described the Tao with "nothingness," which can be misinterpreted as a merely a selfless force. However, it is rather that "The nature of the Being is said to be nothingness because the Being is absolutely complete, in need of nothing, conscious of no wants..." It is spontaneous, requiring no one else to function.

However, Lao Tzu's biggest pitfall for understanding God was the failure of understanding the personal aspect of Him. He knew of it's oneness and selflessness, but couldn't imagine a personal-yet selfless-being. If he declared it was a person, it would be a despot and egoist, but if he declared it as nothing, then it would be uncaring and mechanical. Both of these views would arise within China, where the Tao was twisted to became a neutral and mechanical force.

I believe Lao Tzu is the closest we've seen a pagan see God; if Lao Tzu lived in the Roman Empire and saw Jesus, he would've certainly knew that He was the personification of the Tao and would've been a extraordinary apostle. However, since this didn't happen, either he was waiting with David and the prophets for the Messiah. or he is a tragic case of "missing the mark."

Even so, his impact on China has created a foundation for Christianity to quickly spread within the modern era. If the CCP ever collapses, we may see a fascinating offshoot of Christianity.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Old Baptist Joke:
Q: why is it unwise to take only one baptist fishing with you?
A: If you take only one, he will drink all your beer. You need at least two to have the beer all to yourself

Don't forget "Why do Baptists forbid having sex while standing up? Because that could lead to dancing!"

 

[Preacher ✝]

Hey @Derrick I got a question for ya.

Based on your interpretations, do dead babies go to hell?

In Catholicism we have a concept called the age of reason, the point at which humans begin to be morally responsible for their actions. While there's no hard set age for it, as it varies from person to person, the rule of thumb is around 7-10 years old. This is also the point at which someone can receive first communion and confirmation, with the latter happening as late as 16. Naturally it can be any age for those who become Catholic as adults, but that's besides the point.

What I'm getting at is you're hard set that those who are ignorant of the Gospel, even through no fault of their own, go to Hell, so what about infants or even small children that can't read or are too young to understand? Do they go to hell too? Does being baptized make a difference? Do you believe in the baptism of infants? Does the faith of the parents matter?

 

[Mr Bunny]

The strongest argument for a philosopher in believing in a Christian God is found in ancient Taoism

You will find this article interesting.

 

[Preacher ✝]

You will find this article interesting.

It's a good article on a retarded website. They made creationism their whole personality.

 

[Mr Bunny]

It's a good article on a retarded website. They made creationism their whole personality.

There is nothing retarded about them. Their primary mission is to show people how evolution is false and the historically and the factual truth of the book of Genesis. I consider them no different than any other Christian group that has a dedicated focus on certain Christians qualities/aspects, theirs falls under apologetics. I recommend them for any Christian.

 

[Preacher ✝]

There is nothing retarded about them. Their primary mission is to show people how evolution is false and the historically and the factual truth of the book of Genesis. I consider them no different than any other Christian group that has a dedicated focus on certain Christians qualities/aspects, theirs falls under apologetics. I recommend them for any Christian.

No creationism purists are retarded.

The Catholic Church position on the matter is clear and can be summed up as "It's possible but if so it's still the work of God"

This approach is superior because it completely diffuses the evolution controversy and allows us to focus on the parts of theology that are more applicable and relevant to daily life.

Creationism purists like to frame this stance as a compromise or a capitulation but its no such thing. Good theology should not be at odds with science, because God is not a trickster or a liar, which is what creationism purists paint him as whether they realize it or not. God made us in his image, with reason, intelligence, and observational skills. He did not give us these things to then fill the world with lies and tricks, but if you ever ask a creationism purist about things like dinosaurs, fossil records, carbon dating, etc they will inevitably say something like "its a test of faith" or a "a trick of some kind" and might if pressed attribute it to the work of Satan. But Satan is evil, and evil cannot create, it can only corrupt.

And to be clear when I say science I do not mean the "scienceism/science worship" you see more and more of these days. I mean genuine science, the unadulterated application of the scientific method.

Now to be fair some Catholics go too far and accept evolution whole cloth, which is also not good. Its still just a theory, and one who's validity and scope is not yet proven. For example its entirely possible that animals are subject to evolution but not humans. Worse still I've even seen some of my brethren posit that Adam and Eve were not real people which is false. Adam and Eve were 100% real people and the fall happened in the garden of Eden as written. In fact the validity of Adam and Eve lends credence to the idea that Humans could be the exception to evolution theory.

As far as I am aware the Orthodox Church has come to more or less the same conclusion. @Str8Bustah am I right?

 

[Mr Bunny]

Spoiler: The Creation Answers Book

Chapter 1: Does God exist
Chapter 2: Six days? Really?
Chapter 3: What about gap theories?
Chapter 4: What about carbon dating?
Chapter 5: How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
Chapter 6: How did bad things come about?
Chapter 7: What about similarities and other such arguments for evolution?
Chapter 8: Who was Cain’s wife?
Chapter 9: Were the ‘sons of God’ and/or the nephilim extraterrestrials?
Chapter 10: Was the Flood global?
Chapter 11: What about continental drift?
Chapter 12: Noah’s Flood-what about all that water?
Chapter 13: How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?
Chapter 14: How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood?
Chapter 15: Where are all the human fossils?
Chapter 16: What about ice ages?
Chapter 17: How did animals get to Australia?
Chapter 18: How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?
Chapter 19: What about dinosaurs?
Chapter 20: What should I do?

I asked the creationists for answers, I didn't get "its a test of faith" or a "a trick of some kind" I got detailed answers and evidence to back it up instead and they more than convinced me the historic truth of the Bible, not bad for a bunch of retards.

 

[Preacher ✝]

I asked the creationists for answers, I didn't get "its a test of faith" or a "a trick of some kind" I got detailed answers and evidence to back it up instead and they more than convinced me the historic truth of the Bible, not bad for a bunch of retards.

Those are all great arguments to present to evolution purists, who are also retards.

Since I am not an evolution purist they really don't matter to me. I am content to sit back and watch creationists and evolutionists duke it out, secure in the immutable truth that God is the author of creation, so whatever the case may be we have him to thank for our existence.

If you're content to believe in pure creationism, great, now put that aside and focus on trying to be like Christ, that's what really matters. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

 

[Str8Bustah]

As far as I am aware the Orthodox Church has come to more or less the same conclusion. @Str8Bustah am I right?

As far as I'm aware, the Church is not creationist in its belief structure, but at the same time we absolutely do not class evolution as a real theory-at least concerning the relation between apes and humans-because it spits in the face of the process of Theosis and how it is understood by the Church.

Broadly speaking, those within the Orthodox faith are perfectly happy to call something a mystery if it's too hard to explain. Maybe someone will come along who, through the grace of God, can explain things in a better manner, but until that time there's no point in pulling your hair out over it. Worry about stamping out the idols in your own head before you do anything else. If you focus on that then Christ will literally just give whatever you need by proxy; virtue gained from crucifying yourself and bearing the pain your sins inflict upon you allows you to receive the gifts the Lord sends to you with an ever-increasing fullness.

 

[Preacher ✝]

Broadly speaking, those within the Orthodox faith are perfectly happy to call something a mystery if it's too hard to explain. Maybe someone will come along who, through the grace of God, can explain things in a better manner, but until that time there's no point in pulling your hair out over it. Worry about stamping out the idols in your own head before you do anything else.

Yea I was right then. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are in agreement on this issue.