NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't really think it's all that possible to have a discussion on "what it takes to become a Christian" lest we have people of competing sects arguing about this, that, and the other. You could go about describing what it takes to be a member of the Catholic Church, one of the Orthodox faiths, or a member of a Protestant sect, but it'd be difficult to do without someone 'damning' someone else. Please, refrain from doing this (for this reason, I do not want to get bogged down in questions of doctrine).

Numbers-wise, there are around 1,700,000,000 Christians globally. Of those, around 1,000,000,000 are Catholic - there are 22 rites in the Catholic Church, only one of which (but the most well known) being the Latin rite, commonly referred to as the Roman rite, 300,000,000 members of one of the Orthodox faiths (if I'm not mistaken I believe there are 16 Orthodox churches), and another 400,000,000 members of some 33,000 varying Protestant sects (a Protestant number). These numbers are objective, however, depending on how you count the Copts, etc.

The Catholic Church and Orthodox faiths are virtually the same theologically; they recognize the seven Sacraments, the full canon of Scripture (76 books), the teaching authority of the Magisterium, etc. Their disagreement lay, basically, with the role of the successor of St Peter. To become a member of the Catholic Church or one of the Orthodox faiths requires that you be Baptised and Confirmed as a member of that particular religion. The Catholic Church is the only Church that can claim an unbroken line of succession from the time of the Apostles until now (John Paul II is the 264th successor of St Peter), and although some are disputed most Orthodox faiths have valid lines of Apostolic succession.

The Protestant sects vary greatly in their beliefs. Blame Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc; the number of Sacraments they recognize, the ways in which someone is "saved" - virtually every facet save two are disputed, those two doctrines being Sola Fida and Sola Scriptura, or "Faith alone" and "Scripture alone." Entry also varies from Baptism and a pseudo-confirmation to simply saying you're in.

A good measure of whether or not one is Christian, though, is whether or not they conform to the Creeds and the articles of faith contained therein (I've laid them out below); namely, you must believe in the Most Holy Trinity - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, one God in three discinct persons, and you must be baptised and believe in the Sacrament of Baptism (there is such a thing called Baptism of Desire for those worrying about persons who are ignorant of Christ).

Unitarians (including Jehovahs Witnesses) and Mormons are not considered Christian, whatever they may claim. I will not apologize for this remark; if you disagree, see the above sentence. Please do not flame the thread. Start your own thread.

Now, the Creeds. For conveniences sake I'll try and break them up as best I can into their different "articles" - please, if you're a member of an Orthodox church, do not complain about Filioque. And if you're a member of a Protestant sect, do not complain about the Credo or the parts therein ("I believe in the holy, catholic, apostolic Church"), this is for posteritys sake.

The Apostles Creed is as follows:

I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.

On the third day He rose again.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

The Nicene Creed is as follows:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen, and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven:

By the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered, died, and was buried.

On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;

He ascended into Heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

The Church of England also claims an unbroken line back to the apostles. (I'm serious it does).

Good thread, but I personally believe that the physical baptism is not necessary, as long as the baptism of the spirit takes place. It is nice thought to go thru the cremony, it shows a certain openness about your faith and a willingness to commit to God.

Wow ... so there're more Muslims than there are Protestant Christians? Zowie. I actually did not know that.

Double take: There are more Muslims than there are Catholics?! Double Zowie.

BTW, nice thread start here. :) Insha'Allah, it shall not degenerate into a flame fest, but remain and open discussion of ideas.

I understand the diffrence between The Father and The Son, but I don't understand the Holy Spirit. Could you explain this to me please?

Wow ... so there're more Muslims than there are Protestant Christians? Zowie. I actually did not know that.

Double take: There are more Muslims than there are Catholics?! Double Zowie.

BTW, nice thread start here. :) Insha'Allah, it shall not degenerate into a flame fest, but remain and open discussion of ideas.
Well, you forget that Muslims fall into various categories as well. It's not fair to compare the size of a sect of Christianity to an entire religion.

Well, you forget that Muslims fall into various categories as well. It's not fair to compare the size of a sect of Christianity to an entire religion.

Not by much. 1.3 billion Muslims .... 1.2 billion Sunni, then the rest.

I understand the diffrence between The Father and The Son, but I don't understand the Holy Spirit. Could you explain this to me please?

No one really understands this concept completely. Basically, form what I've learned, the Holy Spirit is like a smal chunk of God that comes in lives inside you, once you've accepted Jesus. Basically, it acts kinda like your Christian conscience, it tries to sway to do what is good and holy.

I really don't want to get bogged down in argument, but I don't agree with Patra in the least.

God revealed as the Trinity occurs all throughout Scripture, not just in the New Testament; although I suppose the doctrine is best stated by Christ in Matthew 28:19 where He instructs the Apostles to make disciples of all nations, baptising them "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" To reduce the Spirit to a 'small chunk of God' when He is in reality the third person of the Trinity is Unitarianistic.

The Apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed at Constantinope in 381 (a few years before the canon of Scripture was compiled) in that the Church recognized the Father as the source and origin of the whole divinity, but that the origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Sons origin; as He is called the Spirit of both the Father and the Son - as the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Name of the Son and by the Son once He had returned to the Father.

I hope this helps? I am not sure exactly what you're asking, but feel free to PM me if you need clarification...

First off, thanks tons to the being who started this thread AND put in the apostle's creed, you are great. I would also suggest the Didache, many translations of it, but they all agree just in different wording.

Sorta right Der, have you ever been baptized .."in" the Holy Spirit"? Jesus is the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is God (his holy presence). So ACTUALLY when you are saved, the H.S. is already in and upon you. The reason "baptizing of the H.S." started up, I do not know. I know my church and some others do it because we ALL know Jesus, the Bible, and GOD God, but so few of us think or remember about H.S....

right so this is more of a catholic/protestant themed thread eh..? yes i did read the thread, but i didn't really pay attention... just let me know if i need to take my non-denominational/non-trinity away before i get outnumbered or something.... bwa

Hmm, that is hard for me, a fanatical, irrational, hate-filled, tradionalist Christian. But I say, stay. I agree, the Bible never ever said the word trinity in its original text...but if there isn't a trinity then we christians are worshipping 3 gods not one. That dismembers the whole faith. Anyhow, I would be honored if you were to stay active on the thread.

Ah, no see, I believe there are 3.. just not, seperate "beings" or whatever.. that they are all the same.. just different manifestations.. which, I guess is trinity to an extent, but not trinity in the way I am seeing it used most of the time, where as they are all seperate or whatever.. now I think i've gone and confused myself trying to explain myself. bah

I understand. I agree. For the most part it is they are all the same.. just different manifestations..
But, there must have been some...difference or separation for Jesus to come to earth, and for the H.S. to come upon the believers and for it to still come upon believers.

but, if God is omnipresent.....

exactly :D

Wow, someone really did his research! Good job!

As for the Trinity, the Catholic Church refers to it as a "mystery" for a reason. We cannot comprehend it, nor can we understand it. It is beyond us. It's an article of faith. However, the concept, as explained by many of the doctors of the church, and most recently put into easier-to-understand terms by C.S. Lewis, is that God the Father is the creator. The creation is the Son, and the love between the two is the Holy Spirit. In a more metaphysical sense, when God created the universe, he looked upon it and said it was good. When he looked upon man, whom he created in his image, he said it was very good. He reflected himself into creation, and that reflection is Christ, who became incarnated as a human. And the Spirit is the link between Father and Son, the bridge between human and divine. Like I said though, you can't really "understand" it.

Kwaswhakistan but, if God is omnipresent.....

true dat


bump

My hat goes off to Vendeen for explaining the Most Holy Trinity in such clear terms, removing the haze created by various postulations. One God, three distinct persons.

Please, do not post your personal views of doctrine on this thread. For the sake of the argument, keep it limited to those accepted by a mainstream religion.

As for the Anglican Church, it lost its line of succession when it split from the Catholic Church under Henry VIII in 1534; from then on the line of succession went from king to king and parliament to parliament.

As for the Anglican Church, it lost its line of succession when it split from the Catholic Church under Henry VIII in 1534; from then on the line of succession went from king to king and parliament to parliament.

That's not what they claim. It is the English Catholic Church and claims direct line back to the apostles, something to do with Henry VIII being the defender of the faith (a title awarded by the pope). (Honestly it does).

This thread should be relabelled so you want to be a Catholic, eh?
It is terribly biased toward the Catholic perspective.

I predict:

a) this is going to end up like the Ask a threads...

b) and they are all going to get locked for spam except K's because that was the first one.

The Church of England also claims an unbroken line back to the apostles. (I'm serious it does).
cant most christian churches do that?

jesus
peter
whoever came after peter
yadda
yadda
yadda
martin luther, henry 8th, calvin, whoever broke you off from the catholic church

yadda
yadda

today

First off, thanks tons to the being who started this thread AND put in the apostle's creed, you are great. I would also suggest the Didache, many translations of it, but they all agree just in different wording.

Sorta right Der, have you ever been baptized .."in" the Holy Spirit"? Jesus is the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is God (his holy presence). So ACTUALLY when you are saved, the H.S. is already in and upon you. The reason "baptizing of the H.S." started up, I do not know. I know my church and some others do it because we ALL know Jesus, the Bible, and GOD God, but so few of us think or remember about H.S....

YAY...someone knows about baptism in the holy spirit. I beleive that wne you are truly repentant and saved, etc. that you have a specific indwelling of the holy spirit that helps to guide you (consience, still small voice, what have you), and when you become baptised in the spirit, it manifests itself in different ways (as outlined in 1 Corinthians 12:8-11).

I would like an athiest to come to a true church. where they preach gods love through understanding, not condemnation. I would like them to be prayed for by an evangelist. Go to Borwnsville, FL. ther ehas been a revival goign on there for nearly 7 years. The power of the holy spirit (which i beleive is gods minifestation of himslef on earth) can be felt...it is tangible. I have felt it. You may have seen people get touched that cannot stand. It is real. It is true. It feels like electricity. Your legs give out completely and you fall.. it doesn;t hurt. you arent; pushed. It's amazing. euphoric.

I dont know much about any other religion besides my own, how did Protestants break away from the Catholic church, and why?

Originally posted by LazyHippies
This thread should be relabelled so you want to be a Catholic, eh?
It is terribly biased toward the Catholic perspective.

Actually, I beg to differ. I found it interesting that the original post from Your NationState Here mentioned the two important principles of sola gracia and sola Scriptura for Protestants. Those are two of three phrases used by Martin Luther during the time of the reformation. Grace alone, Scripture alone. The missing third phrase is sola fide, faith alone. I didn't really see a Catholic twist in this post. I'm sensing more protestant than Catholic. In fact, I'm not sure how the minor language details differ from one denomination to the next, but I go to a Lutheran church and a Lutheran college(both are ELCA, to be precise), and both use the exact wording of the creeds quoted in the original post.

Most evangelical churches I know don't claim a long unbroken succession back to the apostles. They are more concerned with serving God in the present.

Here is my understanding and interpertation of the trinity (not something a minister told me, but my beleif).

Father - God in heaven. God sitting on the throne of heaven.
Son - Jesus, carporeal form of God (i beleive jesus was a part of god, idk if i am wording this right though. he is the son of god, but he is god, yet the son of man, and being so, is suseptible to temptation)
Holy Spirit - God's non carporeal form on earth. Moses on Horeb saw this. It dwelled in the holy of holy's between the cheribum on the ark. it lives in all believers.

Actually, I beg to differ. I found it interesting that the original post from Your NationState Here mentioned the two important principles of sola gracia and sola Scriptura for Protestants. Those are two of three phrases used by Martin Luther during the time of the reformation. Grace alone, Scripture alone. The missing third phrase is sola fide, faith alone. I didn't really see a Catholic twist in this post. I'm sensing more protestant than Catholic. In fact, I'm not sure how the minor language details differ from one denomination to the next, but I go to a Lutheran church and a Lutheran college(both are ELCA, to be precise), and both use the exact wording of the creeds quoted in the original post.

Sure but that person mentioned something which is incorrect. Those are not the foundations of all protestant churches. Furthermore, a great number of protestant churches do not believe in any creed at all. Perhaps the bias is due only to ignorance, but it is still biased because it presents a creed that not all christian churches adhere to, it incorrectly says that all protestant churches believe in the sola gracia and sola scriptura philosophy, and it pretends that Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons are not christian despite the fact that they follow the teachings of Christ.

I dont know much about any other religion besides my own, how did Protestants break away from the Catholic church, and why?

How: Here and there, people tried to make a break for it. This usually resulted in killing, death, war, torture, etc.

Why: Originally, they decided that it would be useful to print the Bible in a local language, so that the Word would be accessible to all. This, however, disrupts the power of the Church, as they were the sole market for this information. Later, after actually reading the text, other people got their own ideas as to what Jesus wanted out of Christians. The Catholic Church frowned on the idea of people intepreting Scripture on their own - after all, this is the job of the Church. This led to further wars, burning of heretics, etc., and caused a lot of people to leave Europe and come to America or Canada (or anywhere else their boats would take them).

Musts:

1)Ask Jesus's forgiveness, and ask him to come into your life. Give your life to him. You don't need a priest to do this -- just close your eyes and ask him.

2)Fellowship with other Christians.

3)Read Romans 10:9 and John 3:16-17 ... this tells you what you've just done (repented and been saved) and what Jesus' mission was and how his blood on the cross gave you the chance to be saved.

4)Get into reading the Bible (generally).

5)Buy a bottle of tequila to celebrate your being saved. (hehe j/k)

I dont know much about any other religion besides my own, how did Protestants break away from the Catholic church, and why?

When martin luther saw the corruption in the catholic church and posted his 95 thesis outlineing church corruption through the selling of indulgences and church posiitons, etc. He also firmly believed that there was salvation through faith, not works alone (which is what most protestants beleive) But faith and works are like a rope. Two ropes alone are not as strong as when they are wound together.

I don;t beleive that for the most part catholics have it all together. True repentance is turning away from that sin, and the bible clearly says ther eis no more repentance for sin (Meaning after repentance, you merely need to turn away) but the priests say they have to do works to be redeemed. I would also like to see where purgatory is anywhere in the scriptures. I think that man has a direct line to god and that to repent i don;t need to have soemne do it for me.

Hmm, that is hard for me, a fanatical, irrational, hate-filled, tradionalist Christian. But I say, stay. I agree, the Bible never ever said the word trinity in its original text...but if there isn't a trinity then we christians are worshipping 3 gods not one. That dismembers the whole faith. Anyhow, I would be honored if you were to stay active on the thread.
First off, this is a mistake. Jesus never put himself at the same level as God. In fact, he stated that his power came from God. Without Gos, then, he had no power. And the Holy Spirit is the word of God.

Originally posted by Rusiennne
I dont know much about any other religion besides my own, how did Protestants break away from the Catholic church, and why?

Well, it all started when........Martin Luther was a Catholic....uhh.....priest, I believe. Something along those lines (sad that I don't know, being a Lutheran). Well, he got to reading the Bible. A lot. He came to understand that Paul's letters (or "epistles" in the New Testament) talked about grace being the sole means by which people can attain righteousness. Hence, sola fide, sola Scriptura, sola gracia.

So he got to thinking and talking about this, and he had a few run-ins with Pope Leo X (or IX maybe, I don't remember), who demanded at the Diet of Worms that he recant or be excommunicated from the church for challenging its official doctrine, which included partial merit-based salvation (indulgences, purgatory, and such). Luther said "I can't recant" (teehee) and nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenburg church. He also hid in his friend's basement, translating the Bible from Latin into German so that laypeople could read it. Everybody who tried it before him was executed as a heretic. The printing press helped him out a lot as well.

He had actually desired to simply reform the church (hence "reformation"), he really didn't want to break off from the Catholic church. But Leo wouldn't listen, and the church wouldn't change, and eventually the Lutheran church formed. I'm not sure if I got all the facts in the right order, but that's a dumbed-down version for simplicity's sake. From there, many more factions came from all over, people interpreting the Bible in different ways.

We are saved by God's grace through faith. If one were saved through works, he'd had reason to think highly of himself. This is not to say that works aren't important. They are the tasks that God has given us to do, and they are the evidence of our faith.

ok, thanks, that clears a lot of my questions out of the way.. :)

Musts:

1)Ask Jesus's forgiveness, and ask him to come into your life. Give your life to him. You don't need a priest to do this -- just close your eyes and ask him.

2)Fellowship with other Christians.

3)Read Romans 10:9 and John 3:16-17 ... this tells you what you've just done (repented and been saved) and what Jesus' mission was and how his blood on the cross gave you the chance to be saved.

4)Get into reading the Bible (generally).

5)Buy a bottle of tequila to celebrate your being saved. (hehe j/k)
Add another

6) Get baptized.

I'll back that up too.

Romans 6:3-5

3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

You must be baptized, therefore.

Well, it all started when........Martin Luther was a Catholic....uhh.....priest, I believe. Something along those lines (sad that I don't know, being a Lutheran). Well, he got to reading the Bible. A lot. He came to understand that Paul's letters (or "epistles" in the New Testament) talked about grace being the sole means by which people can attain righteousness. Hence, sola fide, sola Scriptura, sola gracia.

So he got to thinking and talking about this, and he had a few run-ins with Pope Leo X (or IX maybe, I don't remember), who demanded at the Diet of Worms that he recant or be excommunicated from the church for challenging its official doctrine, which included partial merit-based salvation (indulgences, purgatory, and such). Luther said "I can't recant" (teehee) and nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenburg church. He also hid in his friend's basement, translating the Bible from Latin into German so that laypeople could read it. Everybody who tried it before him was executed as a heretic. The printing press helped him out a lot as well.

He had actually desired to simply reform the church (hence "reformation"), he really didn't want to break off from the Catholic church. But Leo wouldn't listen, and the church wouldn't change, and eventually the Lutheran church formed. I'm not sure if I got all the facts in the right order, but that's a dumbed-down version for simplicity's sake. From there, many more factions came from all over, people interpreting the Bible in different ways.

You got it essentially right, even if it is the dumbed-down version. :)

It should also be said that soon after the Lutheran church was formed, the Catholics began the Counter-Reformation, which among other things cleaned up much of the corruption in their church. So the modern Catholic church is quite different from the one that Luther broke away from. A theology professor of mine from my college days believes that had the Counter-Reformation happened a few decades earlier, Luther would have stayed a Catholic and the Protestant Reformation would have largely not happened.

We are saved by God's grace through faith. If one were saved through works, he'd had reason to think highly of himself. This is not to say that works aren't important. They are the tasks that God has given us to do, and they are the evidence of our faith.

yep, faith is the key. being saved requires faith.

Add another

6) Get baptized.

I'll back that up too.

Romans 6:3-5

3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

You must be baptized, therefore.

I dont belvie that is 100% true you dont have to be truly batised to got to heaven and even if you were and you fall away form god you wont go. My little sister(11) belives in god and is a christain if she were to die today she is still going to heaven even though she has not been baptised. Baptisim is a good thing and when you are ready you should do it but i dont belive its a must to get into heaven. If you read in vs. 5 "we will certainly also be united with him" you notice certainly so if you are batized you will go but its not a must. And there is also a differrence bettwen physical and spiritual baptism.

Explain this:

http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~shane/stasj/pics/humor/div/div_394.jpg

(sorry, just had to)

Add another

6) Get baptized.

I'll back that up too.

Romans 6:3-5

3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

You must be baptized, therefore.

Paul talked about baptism by faith.

You got it essentially right, even if it is the dumbed-down version. :)

It should also be said that soon after the Lutheran church was formed, the Catholics began the Counter-Reformation, which among other things cleaned up much of the corruption in their church. So the modern Catholic church is quite different from the one that Luther broke away from. A theology professor of mine from my college days believes that had the Counter-Reformation happened a few decades earlier, Luther would have stayed a Catholic and the Protestant Reformation would have largely not happened.


So, they are similar today, then why dont they join the church again?
(i know i may seem a little stupid, but i just want to know what everyone thinks)

Romans 10:9 and John 3:16 point to faith being the key ingredient to salvation.

And of course none of it is possible without jesus' blood and .. grace. Baptism is symbolic.

Ok, I'm Muslim, but have a hard time believing in some things. I don't want to be offensive either though, so I'll just try my best not to be.

1. Why don't you believe Jesus was just a prophet? What makes what a few guys wrote down the thing to believe in?
2. I God has the power to do anything, why doesn't he cure all disease? Don't say it's because of free will, either, because that has nothing to do with diseases like cancer.

Originally posted by LazyHippies
it pretends that Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons are not christian despite the fact that they follow the teachings of Christ

Well, they kind of follow the teachings of Christ. There are a few important places where they differ, from the little bit that I know. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Jehovah's Witnesses, don't they believe that only 144,000 people will be saved? And it's partially based on the number of people you convert? This is what I learned in a session on different religions, and it does not stand up against what Christ taught, that he came to save all his lost sheep, if they would let him. He never stuck a seating capacity on Heaven, so if this is indeed a Jehovah's Witness thing, it errs based on Holy Scripture. Jesus said "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved," so if 150,000 people fit that, will 6,000 of them not be saved? That's calling Jesus a liar, which is generally frowned upon by most Christians.

Mormon beliefs contradict the Bible, actually. Joseph Smith wrote and published the "Book of Mormon" in the 1830s, and he claimed that a man could get closer to God by following it "than by any other book." Even the Bible, apparently. I also learned that Mormons believe in different levels of heaven, and a person's placement in these levels depends on what they believe and do during their life. From what I know, Mormons also believe that God has not always been the supreme being in the universe, but he attained that status through righteous living. These are all very contradictory from the Christian faith, on a level that would cause many issues with most Christian churches today.

Again, I may be wrong about some of this, but this is what I understand from what I've been taught.

So, they are similar today, then why dont they join the church again?
(i know i may seem a little stupid, but i just want to know what everyone thinks)

A good Christian woman I work with said it best: "We all love God. But we're imperfect and human and have trouble loving each other." It's not right to have so much dis-unity in the body of Christ. I guess next time you walk or drive down the street and see five different churches, let that remind you to love your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ok, I'm Muslim, but have a hard time believing in some things. I don't want to be offensive either though, so I'll just try my best not to be.

1. Why don't you believe Jesus was just a prophet? What makes what a few guys (the Gospel writers) wrote down the thing to believe in? They couldn't have been using the "tricks" Jesus does as stories to teach lessons?
2. If God has the power to do anything, why doesn't he cure all disease? Don't say it's because of free will, either, because that has nothing to do with diseases like cancer.

"We all love God. But we're imperfect and human and have trouble loving each other."

Best explanation I ever heard.

Ok, I'm Muslim, but have a hard time believing in some things. I don't want to be offensive either though, so I'll just try my best not to be.

1. Why don't you believe Jesus was just a prophet? What makes what a few guys (the Gospel writers) wrote down the thing to believe in? They couldn't have been using the "tricks" Jesus does as stories to teach lessons?
2. If God has the power to do anything, why doesn't he cure all disease? Don't say it's because of free will, either, because that has nothing to do with diseases like cancer.


I know this might sound horrible, but it is possible God puts people through physical sickness, like cancer, in their Earth lives. Maybe he wants them in heaven earlier then needed, or just in time (for people who are in immense suffering) who knows?

Also, according to my knowledge, there isnt much difference between the Christian God and Allah, so why cant Allah just cure sicknesses? (I actually believe they are one in the same)

I know this might sound horrible, but it is possible God puts people through physical sickness, like cancer, in their Earth lives. Maybe he wants them in heaven earlier then needed, or just in time (for people who are in immense suffering) who knows?

Also, according to my knowledge, their isnt much difference between the Christian God and Allah.

There isn't much difference, but what about my Jesus question?

As a Witness, I can tell you that we do not claim to be a part of Christendom, nor do we wish to be. Christendom is actually a secular idea which was derived from pagan customs. The doctrine you stated, however, was that of Catholocism (not just Roman catholics, but all churches that practice Church Law are considered Catholic), not Christianity.

I do wonder why people have such a problem with my faith, however. All that I do is study the bible, pass the word of Jehovah (read your bible, it is His name, and it is in there) to those who wish to hear it, and live my life serving the Almighty in the best way that I know how. I follow His law. I commit my life to Jehovah, as the bible tells me to do. So I fail to see the problem with this.

Your faith is, simply put, your choice. What I choose to believe comes directly from the source and no where else. I would love to have a true theological discussion to simply point out what it is that I have learned as a Friend.

Oh, and we do not believe that only 144,000 will survive the Great Tribulation. It is only 144,000, however, that will go to Heaven and be reign in Jehovah's kingdom beside Jesus Christ (this is stated in the bible). We do not believe, as many religions seem to, that the earth will be destroyed during the time of the Great Tribulation. Simply that those who should be cast out and destroyed will be. Those who are true servants of Jehovah will survive and inherit the kingdom of the earth (this does not mean they have to be witnesses, for all who have died before the Tribulation will be resurrected after). The 144,000 are simply those chosen to rule in Jehovah's government.

-Zeo

...Jehovah's Witnesses, don't they believe that only 144,000 people will be saved? And it's partially based on the number of people you convert? This is what I learned in a session on different religions, and it does not stand up against what Christ taught, that he came to save all his lost sheep, if they would let him. He never stuck a seating capacity on Heaven, so if this is indeed a Jehovah's Witness thing, it errs based on Holy Scripture. Jesus said "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved," so if 150,000 people fit that, will 6,000 of them not be saved? That's calling Jesus a liar, which is generally frowned upon by most Christians.

No, they believe that only 144,000 will go to heaven. That doesnt mean only 144,000 will be saved. Those who are saved and do not go to heaven stay on the new restored Earth free from all evil. They get this from the book of Revelations which speaks of 144,000 saints who bear the name of God on their foreheads. (See Revelations chapters 7 and 14).

Mormon beliefs contradict the Bible, actually. Joseph Smith wrote and published the "Book of Mormon" in the 1830s, and he claimed that a man could get closer to God by following it "than by any other book." Even the Bible, apparently. I also learned that Mormons believe in different levels of heaven, and a person's placement in these levels depends on what they believe and do during their life. From what I know, Mormons also believe that God has not always been the supreme being in the universe, but he attained that status through righteous living. These are all very contradictory from the Christian faith, on a level that would cause many issues with most Christian churches today.

Partly untrue, partly true, and partly I dont know. The Mormons do not believe in the Book of Mormon above the bible, they believe both are equal. I dont know if they believe in different levels of heaven, but if they do it doesnt matter because that is very biblical. The bible is clear when it tells us we will be rewarded in heaven for the things we do on Earth, so obviously someone like Billy Graham will have many more rewards awaiting him than someone like Jeffrey Dahmer (who became a christian in prison). If the Jehovahs Witnesses are wrong, and I believe they are, then obviously those 144,000 are also at a different level than others. Even Dante believed in different levels of heaven based solely on catholic scripture and his own imagination. Believing in different levels certainly does not hinder your being a christian.

Thats a complicated question, i wasnt in a position to answer it well, so im leaving it to someone else :)

Ok, I'm Muslim, but have a hard time believing in some things. I don't want to be offensive either though, so I'll just try my best not to be.

I wasn't offended by your questions, if it means anything. :)

1. Why don't you believe Jesus was just a prophet? What makes what a few guys wrote down the thing to believe in?

By faith, really. Why does anyone believe anything? But if Jesus was a mere prophet, Christianity doesn't work. It is through His sacrifice that we are saved and relieved from the burden of being "good enough", because no one can ever be "good enough". If he was a mere human, he could not have taken on the sins of all in His substitutionary death. But if He weren't human, He couldn't die.

2. I God has the power to do anything, why doesn't he cure all disease? Don't say it's because of free will, either, because that has nothing to do with diseases like cancer.

I can't say I entirely understand His reasoning. But I do think that it is partly as a punishment for all humankind for choosing sin, and partly to test and refine the believers in preparation for the tasks we will have in the life to come.

Ok, I'm Muslim, but have a hard time believing in some things. I don't want to be offensive either though, so I'll just try my best not to be.

1. Why don't you believe Jesus was just a prophet? What makes what a few guys (the Gospel writers) wrote down the thing to believe in? They couldn't have been using the "tricks" Jesus does as stories to teach lessons?
2. If God has the power to do anything, why doesn't he cure all disease? Don't say it's because of free will, either, because that has nothing to do with diseases like cancer.

I'll do my best:

1. What separates Jesus from regular prophets is that he was the only begotten son of God. Old Testament scripture foretold of his coming, and Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

His death on the cross was necessary to bear the sins of the world... so we wouldn't all have to go to hell for the crimes of Adam and Eve. The times where Jesus healed people or performed miracles only helped to confirm that he's the son of God.

2. When original sin was taking place in Eden, God proclaimed that it would be a hard life for people. I would imagine that disease/pestilence/war et al are offshoots of this condemnation. Of course this does not preclude God from touching people if he chooses to... medical miracles occur all the time.

Explain this:

http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~shane/stasj/pics/humor/div/div_394.jpg

(sorry, just had to)

It's saddening is what it is.

It's possible that they are Christians, but have so allowed themselves to be consumed by their own hatred and self-righteousness that they have ignored their Saviour's teaching to love their neighbors. It's possible that they are not truly in Christ, and that in their minds they have simply constructed a false Christ that consecrates their hate. Without actually knowing them as people and being able to see in their heart, I can't say for sure.

[QUOTE=Upper Cet Kola Ytovia]I wasn't offended by your questions, if it means anything. :)



By faith, really. Why does anyone believe anything? But if Jesus was a mere prophet, Christianity doesn't work. It is through His sacrifice that we are saved and relieved from the burden of being "good enough", because no one can ever be "good enough". If he was a mere human, he could not have taken on the sins of all in His substitutionary death. But if He weren't human, He couldn't die.


I'm glad I didn't offend :D

I just have trouble believing Jesus isn't just a very brave martyr. If that were the case, I know, he would be the greatest martyr of all....but if he IS God, then why did he have to suffer? Why didn't he just snap his fingers and take away everyone's sins? One more thing...Does any Christian sect predict when he will return?

If he just snapped, no one would recognize his love for us, or that he even existed.

[QUOTE=Frangland]I'll do my best:

1. What separates Jesus from regular prophets is that he was the only begotten son of God. Old Testament scripture foretold of his coming, and Jesus fulfilled prophecy.
QUOTE]

I understand now. Thanks.

I know in Roman Catholic church, they say he will return but not when.

No problemo. If Mohammed had lived in Jesus' time (or vice-versa), they'd probably have gotten along.

Why did he come at the time he did? Why didn't he come nowadays when we need him more than ever?

I know in Roman Catholic church, they say he will return but not when.

well the last words in Revelation (and the Bible) are (off the top of my head):

"Come, Lord Jesus. May the grace of Christ Jesus be with you."

No problemo. If Mohammed had lived in Jesus' time (or vice-versa), they'd probably have gotten along.

Lol. I bet they would have. :p

No offense, but today is a lot better then back then by what i have heard.

No offense, but today is a lot better then back then by what i have heard.

I don't know, I think in some ways it's better, but other ways it's worse. The governments and stuff like that are better, but pressures on kids and gang violence and things like that are worse I think.

Addressing a couple of things;

Again, let me restate that you please not post personal views on this thread. If that were to happen, we'd be drown in a mass of text and no one would learn anything. Please, refrain from doing this; post only points of doctrine agreed upon by a sizeable sect or religion.

Another few things...

Lazyhippies, there are 33,000 different Protestant denominations. I covered the "mainstream" by outlining the two base principles of Protestantism: Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. There is not enough time in the day to cover the distinctive beliefs of every sect.

Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons are un-Christian in that they reject the teachings of Christ; going so far as to cast into doubt His divinity. If you want to start a thread on Jehovahs Witnesses, start a thread on Jehovahs Witnesses. Don't start one here.

WhisperingLegs, you're incorrect. The Bible was accessible to the public since the earliest times; if you read Midieval literature, you'll find that Scripture was indeed the idiom (or slang) of the day - classed on Scripture were offered at all major universities and houses of study throughout Christendom, and Bibles were free to use so long as you could read. So much for keeping it out of the hands of the people.

Autocraticama, the Catholic Church has never taught that a person is saved by works alone; I'm not sure where you heard this, but you've been lied to. The Catholic Church has always maintained the position that faith is necessary for salvation.

Lowered Self-Esteem, the Bible was being mass-produced by the printing press by it's inventor, the Catholic Johannes Guttenberg. Again, so much for keeping the Bible out of the hands of the people. This popular myth has been propogated to the point of the "big lie" - say it often enough and loudly enough, and people will believe it.

Zeoden, to be technical no one knows the proper Name of God. The word "Jehovah" comes from mixing the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) with the Aramaic word for Lord - adonai; YaHoVaH, or Americanized, Jehovah.

For the Moslems out there, Christian belief in the divinity of Christ began in His lifetime. "My Lord and my God!" That whole thing... To be sure, it's a good question, but not one that I think is suitable for the purposes of this thread. To answer your OTHER question, no; no viable Christian religion can predict the end of the world.

As for quoting Scripture: PLEASE, do not do this as an attempt to "proof" your beliefs. Even satan can quote Scripture; it will get us nowhere to sit and say "Oh yea? Well Jebediah 19:20 says that..." all day long.

AGAIN! The purpose of this thread is NOT to share our "own, personal" beliefs, but to discuss the major doctrinal points of major Christian religions, for Christians and non-Christians alike to learn a little something without the thread devolving into useless garble.

I don't know, I think in some ways it's better, but other ways it's worse. The governments and stuff like that are better, but pressures on kids and gang violence and things like that are worse I think.

No, pretty much the same when it comes to crime and violence. Theres even mention of gangs and things like that in the bible. Remember the story of the good samaritan? who do you think beat up the guy the good samaritan helped?

Luke 10:30In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.

At least nowadays the government doesnt use such barbaric practices as crucifixion, whipping, or chaining you to a corpse for weeks.

...
Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons are un-Christian in that they reject the teachings of Christ; going so far as to cast into doubt His divinity. If you want to start a thread on Jehovahs Witnesses, start a thread on Jehovahs Witnesses. Don't start one here.


Sorry, but that is a lie. Both of them accept the teachings of Jesus Christ and neither one doubts his divinity.

...Let me explain.

Jehovahs Witnesses deny Christs divinity, claiming He is a created being (an archangel - Michael the archangel to be precise).

Mormons deny Christs divinity in that they believe God the Father and that Jesus Christ were both once "mere men" who walked the earth and became gods by obediance to the law.

...Let me explain.

Jehovahs Witnesses deny Christs divinity, claiming He is a created being (an archangel - Michael the archangel to be precise).


No, they do not. They claim Jesus is the son of God.


Mormons deny Christs divinity in that they believe God the Father and that Jesus Christ were both once "mere men" who walked the earth and became gods by obediance to the law.

No, they do not. They believe God created the Earth so how could they also believe they were once men?

You've been hearing incorrect information somewhere.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it's obviously not from the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society (which I'm familiar with) or any Mormon knocking at your door.

Take your objections and start your own thread, they'll be thoroughly trounced there.

Is it ever to late to get baptised?

How to be Christian:
Believe in God and his son Jesus as the savior and Messiah and claim acceptance and forgiveness for all people while fighting for the discrimination of all people who you don't like.

I jest, I jest...maybe

Tocrokia, no, it is never "too late" to be baptised.

To be technical, all that is necessary for a valid Baptism is that you be Baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that a significant amount of water be used in the Baptism. It is recommended that you seriously consider all that Baptism entails (entry into the Christian community) and have it done by a member of the clergy.

Or you can be baptized as an infant and then make your baptism valid with the sacrament of conformation. And Post Your Nationstates here you are right on target with your topic. Keep up the good work!

Commando3, I'm not sure what you mean... Although I realize that baptism and confirmation was sometimes (and still is) given simultaneously (IIRC, some of the Orthodox communities administer the sacraments of baptism, communion, and confirmation at once upon birth), and that it is, like baptism, a sacrament of entrance into the Christian life, an infant baptism is as valid as any other.

Although I realize fundamentalists often criticize infant baptisms as not being performed after what they consider a "born-again experience", this is because they see it not as a sacrament with a salvific purpose but more a public sign of a persons conversion to Christianity which should be undertaken once a person has reached the age of reason (seven or eight) and not before.

The roots of infant baptism lay in Scripture (which I said I would not discuss, and will not), and as a more practical example with circumcision: baptism has replaced circumcision as entry into the Christian community. The early councils and doctors of the Church (including Augustine, IIRC) expressed their views in favor of the practice.

Originally posted by Your NationState Here
Lowered Self-Esteem, the Bible was being mass-produced by the printing press by it's inventor, the Catholic Johannes Guttenberg. Again, so much for keeping the Bible out of the hands of the people. This popular myth has been propogated to the point of the "big lie" - say it often enough and loudly enough, and people will believe it.

I must correct my earlier statement. I was wrong. However, you are also slightly off here. The Bible had already been translated into English by John Wycliffe, but only twelve copies because it was done by hand. Several German translations had been made, however they were second translations, done from a version known as the Latin Vulgate, which Jerome was responsible for in the 4th century or so, so they weren't immensely widespread or easy to read. In addition, German translations of the Bible had been outlawed by Archbishop Berthold of Mainz in his diocese. Why? It was believed that the German language was incapable of accurately containing the original message.

Oh, I failed to mention that most every "legal" copy of the Bible was in Latin, which only the educated could read, so lay people were unable to read the Bible. So in effect, yes, the Bible was kept out of the hands of the masses. Is it more clear this time? It's no myth. Latin was the way to go in those days. And yes, people were executed for even possessing a non-Latin Bible. In fact, the same year Luther translated the Bible into German, seven people were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church for the crime of teaching their children the Lord's Prayer in English, rather than Latin.

Luther finally translated the Bible into German (he was the first to translate from the original Hebrew-Greek text, and the first to translate the entire Bible into German), and his original translation of the Bible sold over 100,000 copies in a span of 40 years. You might say he was instrumental in the spread of "readable" Bibles through Europe. The success of his edition sparked translations in French, English, and other languages.

Did I mess up again? I'm checking three or four unrelated sources for all this info, and it all agrees, so this would be a pretty darn odd myth, to be so accurately wrong in so many different places. Oh, and I'm Lutheran and I know the history of my church, including its unintentional founder, Martin Luther.

And dude, the Gutenberg Bible was mass-produced in LATIN.

Sorry YNSH, I didn't mean to come off so harsh. I do appreciate your post, I'm glad there's finally a thread about Christianity that doesn't include religion-smashing. I just think it'd be nice if you could manage to be a little less belittling when you believe I'm wrong about something.

Hey, criticism accepted. I'm glad to see you came back and we can discuss and not argue over this.

You're correct that the Catholic Church did not allow certain copies of the Bible, and I see that you didn't mention what a lot of others claim - that they were responsible for chaining others. Both accounts are true, books were burnt and chained, but not for the reasons a person is led to believe; Bibles with mistranslations or manipulated text were burned to prevent their being spread, and copies of the Bible were chained for the same reason we chain pens at the library: so everyone can use them (common practice in universities was to chain all books).

The Latin vulgate (vulgate meaning "the vernacular" or common vocabular) Bible was the most popular by far, for several reasons. Originally, Greek had been the language of the people, (IIRC Scripture is actually translated from Aramaic into Greek; Aramaic was the language of Christ and the Apostles - the gospels didn't exist until decades after the resurrection of Our Lord, and it would be around 400 years later that the Church would decide on the canon); in the 4th Century, Latin overtook it, and the Church needed an official translation. Pope Damasus I charged Jerome with the job (Damasus I, for those of you who don't know, formed the canon of Scripture at the council of Hippo in the late 4th century). Also, most books of the age were adorned with full illustration, expensive paper and bindings, gold leafing, etc; meaning they cost a ton. The only persons able to produce them were in universities or the Church, whose official language was still Latin, and whose members went about the tedious task of copying them down (monks and scholars). Anyone who could read was given a crack at them, like I said; Midieval literature was full of Scripture passages. It was the idiom of the day. It wasn't a matter of keeping the Bible "out of the hands of the masses" - it was a matter of practicality.

Nor was Luther the first to translate the Bible into German. I believe Ulfilas has that honor in the mid-fourth century (before he lapsed into the Arian heresy), followed (more recognizably) by Raban Maur from the 8th century, and no less than a dozen more versions appeared before Luther came on the scene (in Strassburg, Switzerland, and Nuremberg); and it is keen to note that Pope Nicholas V was instrumental in sanctioning the use of the printing press to spread information en masse.

As an aside, may I ask what version you currently use? I like the Revised Standard Version. Old school.

Yeah, I think my favorite is probably RSV also. Right now the Bible I use is NRSV, because it's the one my parents gave to me as a confirmation gift. I do have issues with the cover's royal purple border though....

Commando3, I'm not sure what you mean... Although I realize that baptism and confirmation was sometimes (and still is) given simultaneously (IIRC, some of the Orthodox communities administer the sacraments of baptism, communion, and confirmation at once upon birth), and that it is, like baptism, a sacrament of entrance into the Christian life, an infant baptism is as valid as any other.

Sorry I chose the wrong word. Infant Baptism is just as valid as any other (whole families baptized in Bible). I never meant it wasn't. I meant that the sacrament of conformation is a way of saying you accept your baptism as a infant to God. Sorry if I confused you.

Arabislam, if I'm understanding your questions correctly, then they both are very difficult to answer.

The long and short of your first one is one word: revelation. Not the book, the thing. We believe that Christ is God because it was revealed to us, much as the 5 pillars were revealed to Muhammed. So we take it on faith. It's not that we can quote evidence, but rather, that we were told, and we believe. The more theological we get though, the more we can talk about why he had to be God. Essentially, Christ's death did not free the world from sin, or else we'd have been living in a paradise these past millennia. What he freed us from were the chains of original sin, the predilection towards sin that all men possess passed down to us from Adam. Personally, I don't take that part of the Bible literally; I believe it to be an allegory for why man does bad things. Original sin is the weakness of man. Since we can tell the difference between good and evil, and can choose, inevitably some will choose evil. And that is original sin. Christ's death put us back in touch with God, so that through his grace, we can overcome our original sin. His life serves as an example to all of us, telling us how to live. He had to be God, and man, for he had to bear all of our sins on his shoulders. In dying, sin itself died with him, and thus we all die with him, and are reborn with him to eternal life. That should explain some of the metaphors that will get thrown around.

As for your second question, it's tough to explain as well. Honestly, I look at things this way. When you are teaching a child how to walk, you can't hold them up the entire time, or else they haven't learned anything. You show them how, and then let them fall. You have to let them fall, no matter how much it hurts you to watch them fail, or they'll never learn how to walk. That's God. He created this universe out of his massive love. Love is a peculiar thing; it means nothing if you hold it to yourself - it only gains meaning in the giving. So it only made sense that God, whose very nature IS love, created something for him to love, and to love him in return. That's why we exist: you can't love without choice. It can't be forced. So in order to be loved in return, he had to create something that could choose love, could choose good, and to do this he also had to create something that could choose evil. So here we are. There is evil, because we, not God, will it. There is sickness and death, not because God is punishing us for some error long ago, but because we could not learn to love without it. Loving others would be easy if there was no adversity. It's worth noting, however, that this doesn't mean we believe that God is testing us, either. It's not that he wants to see if we're worthy to go to heaven; as far as he's concerned, we're all worthy. This is simply the way it has to be.

Onto a few tangents: being created in God's image, we desire to love him as much as he desires to love us. And God would be thrilled if we could all be with him eternally, but some of us choose not to. And that's what hell is: choosing to turn from God so totally that you can never go back. And in Catholic theology, purgatory is for those people who want desperately to be with God, but out of humility, are unwilling to enter his presence, sinful as they are. So purgatory is where souls go until, essentially, they realize that they ARE worthy, that God has made them so, and then enter into heaven. You've probably heard that there is a final judgement, where all souls will be sent where they belong. Catholics believe also in an immediate judgement upon death. I once had a friend who described the judgement as a simple question: "Do you believe in me?" The truth of everything is laid before you, and you stand there before God, unable to lie. If you were simply never aware, then faced with the truth of it all, you very well might say "Yes." So those who did not know God in life are not damned; they may in fact be more saved than many Christians. In fact, it is very hard to go to hell; the only true way is to be so dead-set against God and what he is and represents that when faced with the truth, you can't accept it, and so turn away from him permanently.

You see, it's not that Catholics believe that it is by works alone that we are saved. Rather, it is through faith AND works. Works without faith has no meaning; doing good not because it's the right thing to do, but because it benefits you somehow, isn't truly good. Good works must be properly motivated to be truly good. But on the other hand, faith without works is hollow and meaningless; you can say "I believe in Christ" all you want, but if you're not living that, if you're not out there, being Christ to others, loving your fellow man, then you're nothing but a pharisee, concerned solely with appearances. Personally, when Paul said that all you had to do was believe in Christ, I don't think he meant that as literally as some take it. After all, if you truly believe in Christ, and all that he stood for, you would sin no more. Our lives mimic the struggle between God and Israel; we accept him, but then we turn away, and forget. But when we realize what we've done, we turn back to him, and he's still there, waiting for us as always. Lastly, a disclaimer since I realize that much of what I've just said is a major bone of contention between certain denominations of Christianity: I didn't mean to offend by any of that, but those are the views of the Catholic church. If you disagree, that's fine, I'm not here to argue who's right, I'm simply stating our position, and giving the reasoning.

And as a very personal aside, with the whole "in his image" thing, well, by Aristotelian logic, you can't give what you don't have; I can't make something red without having something red, nor can I move something without being capable of actuating motion. So God created the universe from himself, and he is mirrored in it. Of course, this should not be viewed as a limitation for God. God is infinite, so this gave him alot of material to work with. ;) It should be noted that because of this, I also believe that the laws of nature are God's will, God's mind imprinted on the universe, so by studying them, in a very unique way we are learning to understand him.

As another aside on the subject of purgatory; the most obvious reason Protestants and Catholics disagree is due to the canon of Scripture (more specifically the Old Testament) - Protestants use the Palestinian canon, and Catholics (Orthodox, etc) use the Septuagint. This means that there is a difference of 7 books in the Old Testament; Protestant bibles contain 39 books (with shorter versions of Daniel and Esther), Catholic bibles contain 46 books. It is keen to note that several Protestant bibles may have these books listed in their bible under the title of "Apocrypha" however.

The seven books are; Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch. When viewed in the light of the Septuagint, the doctrines of purgatory (and some others) are Scripturally sound; when viewed in the light of the Protocanon, they are not.

Here is some helpful Biblical support for purgatory-

The Bible teaches (a) that some sins are forgiven in the next world; (b) that some souls are saved in the next world "by fire"; (c) that it is useful and beneficial to pray for the dead.

Matt. 12-32: And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, NEITHER IN THE WORLD TO COME. (Some sins can therefore be forgiven after death.)

I Cor. 3, 13 and 15: Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 15. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, YET SO AS BY FIRE.

2 Machabees, 12-46: (This is one of the Old Testament books omitted from the Protestant Bible). It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.

COMMENT: As nothing defiled can enter Heaven (Rev. 21-27), there must necessarily exist a state of cleansing or purgation usually called "purgatory."

Tocrokia, no, it is never "too late" to be baptised.

To be technical, all that is necessary for a valid Baptism is that you be Baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that a significant amount of water be used in the Baptism. It is recommended that you seriously consider all that Baptism entails (entry into the Christian community) and have it done by a member of the clergy.

Thats good to hear, because I want to become a Christian, but I am underage and my parents are atheists.

I don't really think it's all that possible to have a discussion on "what it takes to become a Christian" lest we have people of competing sects arguing about this, that, and the other. You could go about describing what it takes to be a member of the Catholic Church, one of the Orthodox faiths, or a member of a Protestant sect, but it'd be difficult to do without someone 'damning' someone else. Please, refrain from doing this (for this reason, I do not want to get bogged down in questions of doctrine).

Numbers-wise, there are around 1,700,000,000 Christians globally. Of those, around 1,000,000,000 are Catholic - there are 22 rites in the Catholic Church, only one of which (but the most well known) being the Latin rite, commonly referred to as the Roman rite, 300,000,000 members of one of the Orthodox faiths (if I'm not mistaken I believe there are 16 Orthodox churches), and another 400,000,000 members of some 33,000 varying Protestant sects (a Protestant number). These numbers are objective, however, depending on how you count the Copts, etc.

The Catholic Church and Orthodox faiths are virtually the same theologically; they recognize the seven Sacraments, the full canon of Scripture (76 books), the teaching authority of the Magisterium, etc. Their disagreement lay, basically, with the role of the successor of St Peter. To become a member of the Catholic Church or one of the Orthodox faiths requires that you be Baptised and Confirmed as a member of that particular religion. The Catholic Church is the only Church that can claim an unbroken line of succession from the time of the Apostles until now (John Paul II is the 264th successor of St Peter), and although some are disputed most Orthodox faiths have valid lines of Apostolic succession.

The Protestant sects vary greatly in their beliefs. Blame Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc; the number of Sacraments they recognize, the ways in which someone is "saved" - virtually every facet save two are disputed, those two doctrines being Sola Fida and Sola Scriptura, or "Faith alone" and "Scripture alone." Entry also varies from Baptism and a pseudo-confirmation to simply saying you're in.

A good measure of whether or not one is Christian, though, is whether or not they conform to the Creeds and the articles of faith contained therein (I've laid them out below); namely, you must believe in the Most Holy Trinity - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, one God in three discinct persons, and you must be baptised and believe in the Sacrament of Baptism (there is such a thing called Baptism of Desire for those worrying about persons who are ignorant of Christ).

Unitarians (including Jehovahs Witnesses) and Mormons are not considered Christian, whatever they may claim. I will not apologize for this remark; if you disagree, see the above sentence. Please do not flame the thread. Start your own thread.

Now, the Creeds. For conveniences sake I'll try and break them up as best I can into their different "articles" - please, if you're a member of an Orthodox church, do not complain about Filioque. And if you're a member of a Protestant sect, do not complain about the Credo or the parts therein ("I believe in the holy, catholic, apostolic Church"), this is for posteritys sake.

The Apostles Creed is as follows:

I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.

On the third day He rose again.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

The Nicene Creed is as follows:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen, and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven:

By the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered, died, and was buried.

On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;

He ascended into Heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

Just to put you right:

the holy catholic Church ---> We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church

the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins, ---> One baptism for the forgiveness of sins
the resurrection of the body, ---> We look to the resurrecution of the dead and the life of the world to come, Amen.

I dont belvie that is 100% true you dont have to be truly batised to got to heaven and even if you were and you fall away form god you wont go. My little sister(11) belives in god and is a christain if she were to die today she is still going to heaven even though she has not been baptised. Baptisim is a good thing and when you are ready you should do it but i dont belive its a must to get into heaven. If you read in vs. 5 "we will certainly also be united with him" you notice certainly so if you are batized you will go but its not a must. And there is also a differrence bettwen physical and spiritual baptism.

What about the concept that Baptism washes away original sin?

Silverwings, are you quoting from the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed? They're presented one under the other.

Towcrokia, rejoice! It's great that you're looking to become a Christian. If you have any questions on what to expect, what to read, or what to do to prepare yourself feel free to PM me and I will respond as quickly as possible. Allelujah!

Celtlund, it's not the opinion of some Protestant sects that Baptism washes away original sin - as mentioned earlier, some do not recognize the salvific necessities of Baptism, nor do they recognize the existence of original sin.

Baptism for the forgiveness of sins (original and personal) has been the practice of the earliest Christians; original sin is (concisely) explained as a privation in which we are all born - which is the absence of grace enjoyed by Adam and Eve. Some believe that Christ's death on the cross removed the stain of original sin; but if this were the case everyone thereafter would be born into sanctifying grace and no faith or baptism would be necessary, everyone would 'automatically' enter heaven. Obviously, this is nonsensical as we have need for recourse to Sacraments, etc.

[QUOTE=Upper Cet Kola Ytovia]
I just have trouble believing Jesus isn't just a very brave martyr. If that were the case, I know, he would be the greatest martyr of all....but if he IS God, then why did he have to suffer? Why didn't he just snap his fingers and take away everyone's sins? One more thing...Does any Christian sect predict when he will return?

He had to suffer and die for our sins so we can be forgiven our sins and go to heaven when we die. It is the ultimate mercy of God. He loves us so much he sent His only son to die so that we may live.

I do not know of any Christian sect that predicts when He will return. He will return in His time.

Why did he come at the time he did? Why didn't he come nowadays when we need him more than ever?

God decided when to send him. We do not always know why God does things but we accept His will by faith.

I'd say "We need Him more than ever" every day - those first few hundred years we died horrible deaths in the colliseums, those next few hundred years we suffered plague and invasion, and these past few hundred years have seen the degredation of ethics and morals. When will it end? Nobody knows.

Is it ever to late to get baptised?

No.

The seven books are; Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch. When viewed in the light of the Septuagint, the doctrines of purgatory (and some others) are Scripturally sound; when viewed in the light of the Protocanon, they are not.

Thank you. I always wondered why the difference and now I know.

By the way, thank you for this thread. I'll be 62 years old in two months and am learning a lot.

What is the difference between salvation and sanctification?

Good question.

Catholics and Protestants agree that justification/salvation is a gift of God, and that by His grace we can grow in our sanctification to become more like Christ. Having said that; sanctification is the process of becoming holy, that is, the more sanctifying grace you have, the more like Christ you become.

This is where the similiarities end, and the argument begins.

The Protestant believes that, once you are justified, you are going to heaven and that is the end. Justification comes from "accepting Christ as your personal Lord and Savior" - and, once you have done this, you cannot lose your justification, you can only become more sanctified. In a legalistic sense, justification is all that is needed for salvation; not perfect sanctification - to the Protestant, the sinner is once and always a sinner, and he can never attain perfect sanctification, God simply 'ignores' or 'covers' their sins. That is, once you accept Christ as your "personal Lord and Savior" you're saved, you cannot lose your salvation, and although/but it is not really necessary you can become more sanctified. (A small aside here. Luther did maintain that there was one way to lose your justification, and that was an act of unfaith, ie, recanting your believe in Christ, but that was the only way. Calvin taught that it was impossible to lose justification)

The Catholic believes that, once you are justified, you can go to heaven, but that is not the end. Justification comes from first faith (active in charity and good works), then genuine sorrow for sin and resolution to not sin again, and finally freedom from sin and its punishments either from baptism or the sacrament of Penance. Once sanctifying grace enters the soul (ie you are justified) you can increase it by every good action you do, acts which merit yyou do not earn anything through works) more grace from God, which strengthens one and makes it easier to resist temptation. This is important because, unlike the Protestant, the Catholic believes that you can lose your sanctifying grace and cease to be justified by giving into temptations and sinning grievously, that is mortally, and that to be justified again would require that you again have faith, be genuinely sorrowful for sin and have a resolution not to sin again, and receive the freedom from sin and its punishments from the sacrament of Penance.

Now, all that being said, closing that door we left a window open, and that is the extent of sanctification which I briefly touched on. The Protestant believes that the level of sanctification (although important) is immaterial to a persons salvation: once saved, always saved; the sinners soul doesn't/cannot become perfect as it is, God only treats it as it if it were. Thus, no need for purgatory.

The Catholic believes that the level of perfect sanctification is not only attainable, but necessary: that is to say that the Catholic believes that the soul must become perfect to enter into communion with God, although those who do not achieve that on earth are not damned but enter purgatory, where they are given further graces and thus are worthy to enter the presence of God in heaven.

Note that when I say Catholic, I also mean Orthodox, Anglican, Copt, etc.

And a bit of clarification on sin and the sacrament of Reconciliation. The Catholic church teaches that there are two types of sins: venial, and mortal. Venial sins are what we do every day, often without realizing it. They are our small imperfections, things we strive our entire lives to rid ourselves of, or little things we do wrong. When Catholics receive the Eucharist, the transubstantiated Body and Blood of Christ, the Church teaches that venial sins are forgiven, assuming you express contrition (that is, basically, you're sorry for it). Only mortal sins must be forgiven through Reconciliation, or Confession as many still call it. And even then, there is a kind of contrition called perfect contrition. Many priests, if you ask them about it, will kind of dance around this, since the Church prefers that you always go to confession. However, if you have sinned, and you are sorry for sinning purely because you have hurt God, and not out of fear of damnation or whatever else, then you have perfect contrition. I am unclear as to whether this works with mortal sin or not, however.

As for mortal sin, in Catholic morality, there are three parts to every action: the act itself, the intent behind it, and the circumstances surrounding it. The Church teaches that an act can be inherently good or evil. Helping the needy is an inherently good act; murder would be an inherently evil one. Stealing would also be inherently evil. However, the circumstances and intent can work to reduce, or increase, one's culpability (which is guilt in the sense of being guilty of a crime, not in the sense of feeling bad about something) for the act. You've still sinned if you commit an evil act, and no amount of good intent or unfortunate circumstances can justify it (2 wrongs don't make a right, to quote the old adage). There is, however, the Principle of Double-Effect, also known as the "Lesser of Two Evils" clause. If the only options open to you involve a morally bereft action, then the morally correct choice to make is the one which causes the least amount of suffering, which brings the greatest amount of good. Of course, figuring out which choice causes the least suffering is the difficulty, but let's go with what we have. Here's an example: let's say you're in poverty, and you've stolen bread to feed your children, who haven't eaten in days. You're poor through no fault of your own; say you lost your job because the higher-ups embezzled too much money and the company went bankrupt or something. So the act here is stealing. The intent was to feed your starving children however, a noble thing. And you weren't poor because you simply were too lazy to get a job; you're poor because of unfortunate circumstance. Your culpability in this case for your sin is about as low as it gets. And because of the Principle above, if your choices were steal, or your children die, then stealing bread is the morally correct choice, and you essentially have no culpability for this.

Lastly, a brief word about Transubstantiation. Catholics, along with Orthodoxy, Anglicans, Lutherans, and several other denominations of Christians, believe that, at mass, the bread and wine are consecrated, and experience a substantial change. Basically, they remain bread and wine, but they no longer exist for the reasons that bread and wine normally exist. They now exist as Christ's body and blood, and through them, he comes to dwell in us, and us in him. It's also worth noting that at the consecration, we are united with every consecration before, and since, and we are present at the Lord's last supper, and at his crucifixion as well. While only priests and bishops have the faculties to consecrate, they do not actually make this change occur; God alone brings this about, and it is the faith of the people that allows God to work the miracle. Of course, this is a very terse explanation, but the transubstantiation is another one of those mind-benders that we have in Catholicism, and since it's such a core mystery, much has been written about it, far too much to fit here.

Baptism is a symbol of your new life in Christ. It is like a wedding ring. When you get married, you publically exchange rings, and that ring is the outward symbol of your marriage. The ring is not what makes you married. Anyone can go buy a wedding ring and wear it and it wont make them married. If you are married, you can remove the ring and you will still be married. It is simply a symbol of the commitment you have made. Baptism is viewed the same way. It is an outward symbol of the commitment you have made to Christ, your death to your old life as you are submerged in the water, and your rising again into the new life when you emerge having been cleansed of your sins by the water (a symbol for the blood of Christ). Unless you are a catholic, in which case baptism is done before you are old enough to make any sort of commitment to Christ and doesnt involve being submerged.

Vendeen, I like your description of mortal and venial sins, although I'm leery of your saying that we cancommit venial sins without even knowing it; as far as I know, you must know you're sinning in order to sin.

You also went on to say that Catholics, as well as Anglicans, Lutherans, etc, believe in transubstantiation, which is not true. Protestants as a whole (IIRC, and some Anglicans as well) reject the doctrine of transubstantiation and use the term consunbstantiation, by which the Body and Blood are present, but "side by side" with the bread and wine.

Also, on baptism; for posteritys sake re: Lazyhippies

it's not the opinion of some Protestant sects that Baptism washes away original sin - as mentioned earlier, some do not recognize the salvific necessities of Baptism, nor do they recognize the existence of original sin.

Baptism for the forgiveness of sins (original and personal) has been the practice of the earliest Christians; original sin is (concisely) explained as a privation in which we are all born - which is the absence of grace enjoyed by Adam and Eve. Some believe that Christ's death on the cross removed the stain of original sin; but if this were the case everyone thereafter would be born into sanctifying grace and no faith or baptism would be necessary, everyone would 'automatically' enter heaven. Obviously, for the Catholic this is nonsensical as they have need for recourse to Sacraments, etc.

Although I realize fundamentalists often criticize infant baptisms as not being performed after what they consider a "born-again experience", this is because they see it not as a sacrament with a salvific purpose but more a public sign of a persons conversion to Christianity which should be undertaken once a person has reached the age of reason (seven or eight) and not before.

The roots of infant baptism lay in Scripture (which I said I would not discuss, and will not), and as a more practical example with circumcision: baptism has replaced circumcision as entry into the Christian community. The early councils and doctors of the Church (including Augustine, IIRC) expressed their views in favor of the practice.

The Protestant believes that the level of sanctification (although important) is immaterial to a persons salvation: once saved, always saved; the sinners soul doesn't/cannot become perfect as it is, God only treats it as it if it were. Thus, no need for purgatory.

Aren't there some Protestant denominations that do not believe in "once saved, always saved?" Didn't John Wesley believe that salvation could be lost through sin but regained through repentance?

Unless you are a catholic, in which case baptism is done before you are old enough to make any sort of commitment to Christ and doesnt involve being submerged.

Some Protistant denominations also accept infant baptism and baptism by pouring rather than immersing. Some accept all forms of baptism.

Good question.

John Wesley was the founder of what is now known as Methodism, or the United Methodist Church. They characterize an assurance of salvation as thus; that you can know that you are saved, but that is not the end; you can lose your salvation by an act of apostasy (ie an act of unbelief, or the rejection of Gods grace and their saving grace) or by a constant refusal of the means of that grace, ie by living a life of good works/by living one of great harm. Suffice it to say that they believe in a justification by faith alone, and that once you are justified in faith you are justified; you can only lose your salvation by openly rejecting Christ through deed (declaring yourself un-Christian or a constant and severe failure in the Christian lifestyle), and so I characterize it as a once-saved-always-saved approach.

Silverwings, are you quoting from the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed? They're presented one under the other.

Towcrokia, rejoice! It's great that you're looking to become a Christian. If you have any questions on what to expect, what to read, or what to do to prepare yourself feel free to PM me and I will respond as quickly as possible. Allelujah!

Celtlund, it's not the opinion of some Protestant sects that Baptism washes away original sin - as mentioned earlier, some do not recognize the salvific necessities of Baptism, nor do they recognize the existence of original sin.

Baptism for the forgiveness of sins (original and personal) has been the practice of the earliest Christians; original sin is (concisely) explained as a privation in which we are all born - which is the absence of grace enjoyed by Adam and Eve. Some believe that Christ's death on the cross removed the stain of original sin; but if this were the case everyone thereafter would be born into sanctifying grace and no faith or baptism would be necessary, everyone would 'automatically' enter heaven. Obviously, this is nonsensical as we have need for recourse to Sacraments, etc.

Actuallu using Baptism is the outward sign of receiving Christs offer of forgiveness (like circumcision was the outward sign of accepting Judaism). Trusting in Jesus does wipe out all our sins - not the act of baptism.

Secondly, what is the need to recourse to the Sacraments?

The Catholic believes that, once you are justified, you can go to heaven, but that is not the end. Justification comes from first faith (active in charity and good works), then genuine sorrow for sin and resolution to not sin again, and finally freedom from sin and its punishments either from baptism or the sacrament of Penance. Once sanctifying grace enters the soul (ie you are justified) you can increase it by every good action you do, acts which merit yyou do not earn anything through works) more grace from God, which strengthens one and makes it easier to resist temptation. This is important because, unlike the Protestant, the Catholic believes that you can lose your sanctifying grace and cease to be justified by giving into temptations and sinning grievously, that is mortally, and that to be justified again would require that you again have faith, be genuinely sorrowful for sin and have a resolution not to sin again, and receive the freedom from sin and its punishments from the sacrament of Penance.

Now, all that being said, closing that door we left a window open, and that is the extent of sanctification which I briefly touched on. The Protestant believes that the level of sanctification (although important) is immaterial to a persons salvation: once saved, always saved; the sinners soul doesn't/cannot become perfect as it is, God only treats it as it if it were. Thus, no need for purgatory.

The Catholic believes that the level of perfect sanctification is not only attainable, but necessary: that is to say that the Catholic believes that the soul must become perfect to enter into communion with God, although those who do not achieve that on earth are not damned but enter purgatory, where they are given further graces and thus are worthy to enter the presence of God in heaven.

Note that when I say Catholic, I also mean Orthodox, Anglican, Copt, etc.

Anglicans don't believe in purgatory. Nor do they believe that we can become perfect on this world (see Romans "No-one is perfect, not even one"), but only increase in holiness yet never attain it perfectly. They believe that God makes us perfect when we go to join him.



Once sanctifying grace enters the soul (ie you are justified) you can increase it by every good action you do, acts which merit yyou do not earn anything through works) more grace from God, which strengthens one and makes it easier to resist temptation. This is important because, unlike the Protestant, the Catholic believes that you can lose your sanctifying grace and cease to be justified by giving into temptations and sinning grievously, that is mortally, and that to be justified again would require that you again have faith, be genuinely sorrowful for sin and have a resolution not to sin again, and receive the freedom from sin and its punishments from the sacrament of Penance.


You do appear to be quoting a gospel of works. Increasing grace through good works? Paul says that grace is not of us but of God and that we cannot increase it. We can ask for a greater portion of faith, but not of grace.

Mortally sinning? As I mentioned before, the Bible clearly states that no-one is righteous, and that to break one part of Gods law is to break it all. So therefore we all continually lose our justification by your argument.
I'd agree that faith is a continual repenetence and positive action though.


receive the freedom from sin and its punishments from the sacrament of Penance.


sorry, are you saying that it is only through this sacrament that we can receive? What about "Christs atoning sacrifice once and for all"? and "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins"?



Incidentally for anyone else.. holy catholic Church, does not refer to Catholicism, but instead the united front of the Church in believing these things.

Anglicans don't believe in purgatory. Nor do they believe that we can become perfect on this world (see Romans "No-one is perfect, not even one"), but only increase in holiness yet never attain it perfectly. They believe that God makes us perfect when we go to join him.

I'm not sure how what you're saying here disagrees with what I said there. Purgatory is that place we go "that God makes us perfect"

Re: gospel of works.

The Catholic Church also teaches that man cannot earn grace through works; the Catholic Church has always affirmed the opposite: that no natural act earns grace, only Christ is capable of meriting grace in the strictest sense. The Catholic Church does teach, however, that through actual graces from God, man performs acts which are pleasing to God and that He will reward them. Insofar as I know, Protestants are consigned to agree although they dispute the terminology. Not to get into a Biblical argument (I've said it once; I've said it again, I don't want the thread nuanced to death by people quoting this that and the other: even satan can quote Scripture. Really, he can, it's in the Bible), but Paul also says this in Romans and Galatians.

Re: mortal sins

Protestants teach that mortal sins exist in one form or the other; ie, blasphemy, apostasy, or leading a wholly decadent lifestyle: although they do teach that other sin does not harm your relationship with God. Catholics teach that sins do harm your relationship with God, and that grievously sinning seperates one from God, and not to get into an argument about Scripture, this is also taught in the Bible vis-a-vis sin and deadly sin.

Per the Sacrament of Penance; if it were not necessary Christ would not have commissioned the Apostles to do so.

And per the catholic Church as stated in the Creed, your clarification is duly noted but only from the Protestants viewpoint.

Thanks for the reply...

further note on "holy catholic Church" - the reason it has a small "c" and not a capital one is because it refers to the unified, not Catholic Church. I've checked this with several priests of several denominations, including Roman Catholic.

I don't see why you don't want to quote scripture (although I agree that it can be misused). However, we are told to check things against scripture.

Protestants do teach that sin does damage your relationship with God, but that no priest/minister is needed in order to set things right...just talking to God ourselves and repenting, turning and living for Him. And yes, as James says, you can judge your faith by the outward fruits of it (so less sin is better! :) )

Also, I don't really understand what the sacrament of penance is...I would be very grateful if you could explain for me. I do need to look more into the dogma of sacraments, but currently have other reading!

Catholics believe that the sacrament of Penance is one of two methods Christ left us for the forgiveness of sins (the other is Baptism); although the sacrament has been popularly called Confession, Reconciliation, and Penance, it is also called the sacrament of Conversion and the sacrament of Forgivenss, as these all emphasize particular aspects.

First, it is not necessary to confess venial sins, although it is recommended.

Were the forgiveness of sins through the sacrament an unnecessary part of salvation, Christ would not have commissioned the Apostles to do so. That said, the Catholic Church does not teach that priests forgive sins - the Catholic Church has always taught that only God forgives sins. By virtue of His divine authority, He gives this power to men, the Apostolic Ministry ("Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, whose sins you retain are retained"), whom are to continue on with Christ until the end of the age. Were the Apostolic ministry to end with the Apostles, they would have had no need for electing Matthias in place of Judas, or to leave successors such as Timothy; nor would Christ need to remain with them until the end of the age.

That said, the sacrament itself is as thus; conversion and repentance of the sinner, that is an interior conversion of the heart which encompasses sorrow for the sins committed and disgust at the sins committed with the firm conviction of sinning no more in the future, followed with an examination of conscience and the disclosure of sins to a priest, and the intention to make reparation.

The effects of the sacrament are reconciliation with God and the recovery of justification and sanctifying grace, reconciliation with the Church, remission of the eternal punishment associated with mortal sins, remission of temporal punishment associated with sins, clearing of conscience, and an increase in spiritual strength and confidence.

What determines if a sin is a venial or mortal sin?

Strictly speaking, a mortal sin is a sin that destroys sanctifying grace within a soul; a venial sin is a sin that allows sanctifying grace to exist, but harms it and so makes it easier for a person to sin again.

Sin is an action, desire, or a declaration contrary to eternal law. It is an act contrary to reason that wounds mans najure and injures his relationship with God as well as the Church.

A venial sin is a less serious matter in which a person does not live up to the standards proscribed by the moral law, or disobeys in the grave matter without full knowledge or consent.

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met; the sin must be a grave matter, it must be committed of a persons own free will with full knowledge of its gravity, and it must be committed of that persons deliberate consent.

The sin must be a grave matter: that is, the gravity of sin is more or less great; murder is greater than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged; violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Must be committed of a persons own free will with full knowledge of its gravity: This presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act and that it is of a sufficiently deliberate consentual nature to be a personal choice; feigned ignorance or unfeeling increases the voluntary characteristics of a sin, forced coercion diminishes them.

Must be committed of that persons deliberate consent: That is, through no feelings of malice or choice of evil which increase consent; and not promptness of feelings and passions as well as coercive pressures or pathological disorders which diminish it.

Your NationState Here, what I meant by committing sins without knowing it wasn't that we're not aware what we are doing is a sin. It's just that we don't think about it. If we stopped and said, "is this a sin," we'd answer yes. But we rarely stop to think about it at the time. Talking bad about a person behind their back, wishing harm upon others, etc. are all sins, and things many people do daily. And these people probably know these are sins, they just don't stop to think about it. Certainly this decreases their culpability, if only by a little (not that these are very grave sins at all), but that's what I meant by "without even realizing it."

And thanks for posting the 3 requirements; apparently, I got so caught up in the principle of double-effect, I forgot to get to that point, heheh.

Well, I do not believe that sort of ignorance removes all complicitness in the sin, but I understand what you're saying now.

I also think its interesting that the agnostics/atheists have either avoided the thread completely, or rated it a 0; while they treat the non-Christian threads of the same name quite differently.

Well, I do not believe that sort of ignorance removes all complicitness in the sin, but I understand what you're saying now.

I also think its interesting that the agnostics/atheists have either avoided the thread completely, or rated it a 0; while they treat the non-Christian threads of the same name quite differently.

I don't really think its all that interesting. This is how humans operate. we love surrund ourselves with a whole bunch of people who are saying the exact same thing we are. Reaffirms our beliefs. Both sides like to ad hominem each other, then run bact to their camp and talk about how they pwnd the dumbass other side.

I like this thread and have learned a lot. It's also acted like a refresher course for me. Thank you.

Glad we could be of help to eachother.

It's really a pity this threat is threatening to go the way of the dodo; it's full of useful information. I'm actually surprised more haven't latched on to it, as there are so many claiming Christianity as their faith...

Sadly, it's as Der Lieben says. People, whether atheists, Christians, or what have you, don't want the veil of ignorance about Christianity and what it really teaches lifted from their eyes. It's far easier and less complicated to simply continue to stereotype Christianity and assume that what they believe it is is really true. I'm just glad that this thread has helped some people, such as Celtlund, learn something new, or remember something forgotten.

"Peter means stone, Jesus means rock (according to ancient Greek which the new testament was in) so how does this verse mean it is the start of the Catholic church? (Yes I know that Catholics use it to state that it is the start of their church, but is it really?) "

A couple of things wrong with this interpretation, from the Catholic point of view:

First, the Greek Orthodox don't agree; and they speak Greek. (The Greek Orthodox recognize the primacy of the See of Peter; but disagree over how it is to be exercised. The Roman-Greco schism of 1054 is for another thread, however)

Second, the reason the Greek Orthodox don't agree is that because when the Gospel of Matthew was written, the discrepancy between the Greek words Petras and Petros did not exist: that is to say, there is no discrepancy. In fact, were Christ to call Peter a pebble/small rock, He would've just used the term lithos, which means pebble/small rock. Third, Petros is a translation of Peters Aramaic name given to him by Christ: Kepha.

Fourth, simply reading the verse, to interpret it that way would make little to no sense. Peter, you have received revelation from God; but you're pathetic; but I'm giving you the Keys to the kingdom. It makes even less sense when you cross-reference it with Isaih 22.

Fifth, the background of the verse. Caesarea Philippi was the site of a pagan city, with a gigantic rock atop which sat a temple dedicated to Caesar and the pagan god 'pan'. Setting this into perspective, two things become clear from the verse: Christ is God, not pan or any other false god, and Christ will build His Church upon the rock Peter, as opposed to the false gods church setting atop a big rock of itself.

In the Catholic Church, if a Catholic leaves the Church because of the sins of the priests and Bishops, who is at fault (or sinned) in the eyes of the Church?

Not to beat a dead horse, but I didn't see this question until tonite.

Although the Catholic Church hasn't directly answered that question as such, it does teach that those who are faced with the Truth and reject it are considered guilty of a formal heresy, are anathema, and that there is no hope of salvation as such.

Now, through scandalization of an individual as the fault of a member of the clergy (God have mercy on him) or the laity, it can be said that the person would then be made less culpable for what they have done out of a sort of "invincible ignorance" - although this does not excuse one from abandoning the Truth.