NationStates Jolt Archive

There are these b*tches in my class that don't know jack-shit about religions and im just trying to vent my anger here. What do you think: Does Christianity and Catholcism have common grounds? They say NOOOOOOOO!!!

OK, again.

You'ld be amazed at how many fundy groups preach that Catholics =/= Christian.

Catholics are a Christian sect, just like Lutherans or Baptists or, frankly, even Mormons.

Christianity is the broad group of religions that follow the teachings of Jesus. They may not all agree on what Jesus said (the Catholics, Mormons, and Cathars would all have very different things to say on the subject).

Catholicism is a type of Christianity. Don't they teach history in <insert place you come from>?

There are these b*tches in my class that don't know jack-shit about religions and im just trying to vent my anger here. What do you think: Does Christianity and Catholcism have common grounds? They say NOOOOOOOO!!!
They be stoopid heads.
Of course catholicism and christianity have a common ground. Most notable being that guy, eh whatshisname, Jesus or something like that. And then there's that Bible thing.

There are these b*tches in my class that don't know jack-shit about religions and im just trying to vent my anger here. What do you think: Does Christianity and Catholcism have common grounds? They say NOOOOOOOO!!!

You do know that Catholicism is Christianity don't you? Its a branch of it.

There are these b*tches in my class that don't know jack-shit about religions and im just trying to vent my anger here. What do you think: Does Christianity and Catholcism have common grounds? They say NOOOOOOOO!!!
Catholicism is the oldest, and original, Christian denomination.

Catholicism is the oldest, and original, Christian denomination.

Actually..its an offshoot of the early church.

Actually..its an offshoot of the early church.
Like that counted.

There are these b*tches in my class that don't know jack-shit about religions and im just trying to vent my anger here. What do you think: Does Christianity and Catholcism have common grounds? They say NOOOOOOOO!!!

Common ground: there was this jewish carpenter dude who got nailed to a tree by some romans for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change.

Protestantism: authority comes from a book, written by some guys (don't know who most of them were), somewhere, sometime after 30AD.

Catholicism: authority comes from whoever has the biggest, most kickass hat.

I think I've just summed up centuries of theological debate. :)

To put in a logical syligism:

All catholics are Christians. All Christians are not catholics.

Common ground: there was this jewish carpenter dude who got nailed to a tree by some romans for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change.

Protestantism: authority comes from a book, written by some guys (don't know who most of them were), somewhere, sometime after 30AD.

Catholicism: authority comes from whoever has the biggest, most kickass hat.

I think I've just summed up centuries of theological debate. :)
You win the thread!

Like that counted.

It does count in my book.

Catholicism is a form of Christianity but not the other way around. Christians are those who are very spiritual and religious about their beliefs. Catholicism have ways and values that must be followed. Humans made their decision on this one. So Catholics are Christians, though Christians are those who believe in spirituality.

There are these b*tches in my class that don't know jack-shit about religions and im just trying to vent my anger here. What do you think: Does Christianity and Catholcism have common grounds? They say NOOOOOOOO!!!
Um, of course it does...

You win the thread!

I couldn't have done it without Douglas Adams. :)

I decided to be an ass and pick "What's Christianity?"
But do you really know the history of the cult? I highly doubt it.

I decided to be an ass and pick "What's Christianity?"
But do you really know the history of the cult? I highly doubt it.

Its a cult?

that is sooo not true.... the christian religion is NOTHING like the catholic. catholics worship Mary, we beleive that Christ alone is to be worshipped. Mary is not holy. The differences are ENDLESS!!!!

Christianity...is like a base religion, Lutherns, Baptists, all Christian Denomonations adhere to the basics of christianity...

Part of thos basics is that

"Jesus was God in the form of a man"
"All have sinned and earn eternal death as the consequences of sinning"
"Jesus lived a perfect life"
"Jesus took the death that we all deserve"
"Jesus nis our only intermeadiary with God. ie Us -> Jesus ->God"


Catholics add that you either need to pray to a saint to ask Jesus to ask God, or Mary, his mother.(Mary is seen to have the greatest influence over Jesus), not to forget the icons in catholocism, it seems Mary and the saints are worshipped rather than the Godhead which Idolism is strictly forbidden and the Bible is full of "Don't worship me, Worship God" whether it is Angels or people.

That is why I beleive Catholicism (don't get me started on Mormons) as a religion is not a Christian religion... not saying that all catholics aren't christian just saying Catholicism as a rule isn't.

snip
Holy shit, size 7 font! I never would have read that post if the font wasn't size 7! Jesus Christ! Now I understand that my sinful Catholic ways have been a perversion toward God! Now I can start my life over as a true Christian. Thank you, Le Papillon. You have helped me see the light of Christ.

Your stupidity is astounding. Catholicism IS a denomination of Christianity.

Its a cult?

According to Google define:

In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream.

The only real difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers. So Christianity was a cult for a long time, still is in parts of the world, and will be again at some point in the future.

that is sooo not true.... the christian religion is NOTHING like the catholic. catholics worship Mary, we beleive that Christ alone is to be worshipped. Mary is not holy. The differences are ENDLESS!!!!

Like I said....

Catholicism is a form of Christianity but not the other way around. Christians are those who are very spiritual and religious about their beliefs. Catholicism have ways and values that must be followed. Humans made their decision on this one. So Catholics are Christians, though Christians are those who believe in spirituality.


Christians believe in Christ.
Catholics believe in Christ.
Catholics are Christians.


Christians don't have values?
Catholics are not spiritual and religious about their beliefs?

According to Google define:

In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream.

The only real difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers. So Christianity was a cult for a long time, still is in parts of the world, and will be again at some point in the future.
Au contraire. It's rising in numbers.

that is sooo not true.... the christian religion is NOTHING like the catholic. catholics worship Mary, we beleive that Christ alone is to be worshipped. Mary is not holy. The differences are ENDLESS!!!!

We don't worship Mary. Marianists do.
:rolleyes:

According to Google define:

In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream.

The only real difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers. So Christianity was a cult for a long time, still is in parts of the world, and will be again at some point in the future.

Actually RandomLittleIsland,

Christianity was an offshoot of the Jewish Faith. Because they thought differently, they were persecuted and shunned despite the fact that they wanted to maintain their jewish way of life.

Au contraire. It's rising in numbers.

Doesn't matter. It's still a pathetic cult that couldn't even come up with an original mythology.

Christianity...is like a base religion, Lutherns, Baptists, all Christian Denomonations adhere to the basics of christianity...

Part of thos basics is that

"Jesus was God in the form of a man"
"All have sinned and earn eternal death as the consequences of sinning"
"Jesus lived a perfect life"
"Jesus took the death that we all deserve"
"Jesus nis our only intermeadiary with God. ie Us -> Jesus ->God"


Catholics add that you either need to pray to a saint to ask Jesus to ask God, or Mary, his mother.(Mary is seen to have the greatest influence over Jesus), not to forget the icons in catholocism, it seems Mary and the saints are worshipped rather than the Godhead which Idolism is strictly forbidden and the Bible is full of "Don't worship me, Worship God" whether it is Angels or people.

That is why I beleive Catholicism (don't get me started on Mormons) as a religion is not a Christian religion... not saying that all catholics aren't christian just saying Catholicism as a rule isn't.


We do not worship the saints nor Mary. We see them as persons of great spirituality to be used as role models, and as intercessors while praying. We pray to the godhead directly, but if there is a saint whose experienced something akin to whatever problem we're having now, we ask them to pray for us as well.

Doesn't matter. It's still a pathetic cult that couldn't even come up with an original mythology.
You have the right to your opinion. I have the right to think you are a hateful moron. Good day.

Bloody hell. Catholicism is christianity. The other christians separated from the Catholic church during the reformation.

Also:

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" - NIV

Historically, Jesus commisioned the original christian church, called the Catholic church, with St Peter as the pope.

Bloody hell. Catholicism is christianity. The other christians separated from the Catholic church during the reformation.

Also:

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" - NIV

Historically, Jesus commisioned the original christian church, called the Catholic church, with St Peter as the pope.

And they broke off from the Jewish Faith even though they didn't want to. Just like Martin Luthar never intended to break away from the Catholic Church.

Actually RandomLittleIsland,

Christianity was an offshoot of the Jewish Faith. Because they thought differently, they were persecuted and shunned despite the fact that they wanted to maintain their jewish way of life.

I'm sorry? How does that refute its cult status in its early years?

In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people (often a new religious movement) Check devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of societyDefinitely, Christians were a minority in Judaism. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system God walking as a man? That was pretty novel for Judaism or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream.

The definition still seems to fit.

I'm sorry? How does that refute its cult status in its early years?

Sorry to burst your bubble but in fact, it was never a cult.

And they broke off from the Jewish Faith even though they didn't want to. Just like Martin Luthar never intended to break away from the Catholic Church.

They didn't break off from the jewish faith. They formed a new, stronger, covenant with Jesus as the messiah.

Au contraire. It's rising in numbers.

I never said it would be in the near future. Nothing lasts forever, eventually current religions and societies will be marginalised by new ones.

Incidentally I don't know about the rest of the world but a survey in the UK found that most young people are completely indifferent to religion and spirituality.

They didn't break off from the jewish faith. They formed a new, stronger, covenant with Jesus as the messiah.

Actually Commie catholics, they did break off from the Jewish faith because they were rejected by the Jews. That's why Lutheran came about. It broke off from the Catholic faith for they were persecuted within the church.

Sorry to burst your bubble but in fact, it was never a cult.

Then please burst my bubble by explaining how it didn't fit the definition:

In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people (often a new religious movement) Check devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of societyCheck. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system Check or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream.

Or provide a different definition if you prefer.

I never said it would be in the near future. Nothing lasts forever, eventually current religions and societies will be marginalised by new ones.

Incidentally I don't know about the rest of the world but a survey in the UK found that most young people are completely indifferent to religion and spirituality.
Surveys have the fault of being mere statistics...statistics ultimately limited in their function by the samples that are used to form them. Either way, I do not care. My faith is not contingent on that of others. If they are so blind as to refute our Lord, then let them remain in perpetual darkness.

There are these b*tches in my class that don't know jack-shit about religions and im just trying to vent my anger here. What do you think: Does Christianity and Catholcism have common grounds? They say NOOOOOOOO!!!

First, your language is terrible. You use such vile language in a Christian religious thread.

Second, What the women are saying is wrong. Catholicism is a Christian religion. They have no idea or concept of Christian history and you are right.

Actually Commie catholics, they did break off from the Jewish faith because they were rejected by the Jews. That's why Lutheran came about. It broke off from the Catholic faith for they were persecuted within the church.


They didn't reject the jewish faith. They formed a new covenant. The christian faith still includes the OT and still acknowledges laws formed in the old covenant.
The jews rejected the christians because they wanted a messiah that would bring Israel glory. They wanted a leader. They rejected Jesus because he preached peace instead of war on the romans.

They didn't reject the jewish faith. They formed a new covenant. The christian faith still includes the OT and still acknowledges laws formed in the old covenant.
The jews rejected the christians because they wanted a messiah that would bring Israel glory. They wanted a leader. They rejected Jesus because he preached peace instead of war on the romans.

And in the process, they formed a seperate church AWAY from the Jewish faith. Christians do not celebrate the passover whereas the early church DID. Christians do not celebrate Purim but the Early Church (as far as I can tel) DID.

Surveys have the fault of being mere statistics...statistics ultimately limited in their function by the samples that are used to form them. Either way, I do not care. My faith is not contingent on that of others. If they are so blind as to refute our Lord, then let them remain in perpetual darkness.

Well speaking as a young person in the UK from what I've seen it seems pretty accurate.

But regardless, I'm not saying this to undermine your faith my friend, I'm merely pointing out that nothing lasts forever and that at some point in the future Christians will be a minority again (assuming humanity doesn't find a new and interesting way to wipe itself out before then).

Well speaking as a young person in the UK from what I've seen it seems pretty accurate.

But regardless, I'm not saying this to undermine your faith my friend, I'm merely pointing out that nothing lasts forever and that at some point in the future Christians will be a minority again (assuming humanity doesn't find a new and interesting way to wipe itself out before then).

The Rapture is coming. Are you going to be left behind?

Well speaking as a young person in the UK from what I've seen it seems pretty accurate.
The UK is in an overall decline. I will not lament its loss.

And in the process, they formed a seperate church AWAY from the Jewish faith. Christians do not celebrate the passover whereas the early church DID. Christians do not celebrate Purim but the Early Church (as far as I can tel) DID.


There have been many changes since the early church. Does that make them less christian?

The Rapture is coming. Are you going to be left behind?

Actually the Rapture happened two weeks ago. Looks like you've been left here with the rest of us.

You should have listened to the Mormons when you had the chance.

There have been many changes since the early church. Does that make them less christian?

It goes to show that they broke away from the Jewish faith.

The UK is in an overall decline. I will not lament its loss.

Don't worry, we love you too. :fluffle: :)

They didn't reject the jewish faith. They formed a new covenant. The christian faith still includes the OT and still acknowledges laws formed in the old covenant.
The jews rejected the christians because they wanted a messiah that would bring Israel glory. They wanted a leader. They rejected Jesus because he preached peace instead of war on the romans.
The point is that the early christians were in the minority. Who rejected whose religion is about as relevant as who can eat more ketchup, a priest of a rabbi.

Actually the Rapture happened two weeks ago. Looks like you've been left here with the rest of us.

You should have listened to the Mormons when you had the chance.

The rapture hasn't happened yet Randomlittleisland for God hasn't yet defended Israel with fire from the sky against the enemy from the North.

Catholicism is a form of Christianity, just like Protestantism is a form of Christianity. Not the other way around.

The rapture hasn't happened yet Randomlittleisland for God hasn't yet defended Israel with fire from the sky against the enemy from the North.

Lebanon is to the north of Israel and the Israelis bombed the hell out of them a while ago. Sounds like a metaphorical fulfilment to me.

The rapture hasn't happened yet Randomlittleisland for God hasn't yet defended Israel with fire from the sky against the enemy from the North.

Oh dear. That sounds like fun. I think I'll stay and watch.

It goes to show that they broke away from the Jewish faith.


They didn't break away. They made amendments to it.

Break away implies that they rejected it entirely. Which they clearly didn't do seeing as they still consider the Ten Commandments to be law.

The point is that the early christians were in the minority. Who rejected whose religion is about as relevant as who can eat more ketchup, a priest of a rabbi.


I know. But the guy I'm arguing with seems to think it's pretty important.

'Night all. :)

Lebanon is to the north of Israel and the Israelis bombed the hell out of them a while ago. Sounds like a metaphorical fulfilment to me.

Then I suggest you read Ezekial chapters 38 and 39 I believe for God has yet to defend Israel.

'Night all. :)

Good night.:fluffle:

Oh dear. That sounds like fun. I think I'll stay and watch.

We may see it in our lifetimes. I"m hoping I'm around to see God defend the Nation of Israel for it will signal that the rapture will be hot on its heels.

I was raised by a protestant father and a Catholic mother and the two are both very Christian. To deny that a protestant or a Catholic is Christian is absurd. Anyone who tries to make that claim is living in the land of oz. To be a Christian by webster definition you must "Profess belief in Jesus as Christ or follow the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." Both protestants and Catholics do this. That's all there is too it.

Lebanon is to the north of Israel and the Israelis bombed the hell out of them a while ago. Sounds like a metaphorical fulfilment to me.

im starting to have doubts on the spirituality on the book of revelation. according to the time, place, and events, it seems like John was trying to attack the romans, butbuilding the faith of christians. a good read tho. ive read it like 8 times this month.

im starting to have doubts on the spirituality on the book of revelation. according to the time, place, and events, it seems like John was trying to attack the romans, butbuilding the faith of christians. a good read tho. ive read it like 8 times this month.

And you base this hypothesis on what?

We may see it in our lifetimes. I"m hoping I'm around to see God defend the Nation of Israel for it will signal that the rapture will be hot on its heels.

thats not the sign of the rapture. the sign is that and i quote... the meaning, dont know it word for word: the false christ (antichrist) will convince the world he is christ and command all nations and tongues. somewhere along the lines of that. then we have 3.5 years till he shows his true self, then 3.5 years till its over, or begins... cant remember damit :eek:

They didn't break away. They made amendments to it.

Break away implies that they rejected it entirely. Which they clearly didn't do seeing as they still consider the Ten Commandments to be law.

There were actually some pretty big fights about this in the early Church, about if Christianity was an outgrowth of Judaism, in which case you must first be a Jew to be a Christian, or if it was something new and better.

Eventually, it was decided that Christianity was NOT a part of Judaism, and that Christians were not bound by the Old Covenant, but by a New Covenant. Jewish Law, as a whole, does not apply to Christians, though parts of it are still revered, though are always secondary to the New Covenant.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why men are not required to be circumcised to become a Christian. Makes for an interesting Scripture reading on Sundays, let me tell you.

So considering that the New Covenant was considered to completely supercede the Jewish Law, I'd say that's a break-away.

What has any of what you are posting got to do with the point of the thread. You are debating irrelevant points. Look at my last post. It proves that Catholics are Christians. It proves that protestants are Christians. It's just that simple. I think everyone is getting a bit ahead of themselves here.

Christianity...is like a base religion, Lutherns, Baptists, all Christian Denomonations adhere to the basics of christianity...

Part of thos basics is that

"Jesus was God in the form of a man"
"All have sinned and earn eternal death as the consequences of sinning"
"Jesus lived a perfect life"
"Jesus took the death that we all deserve"
"Jesus nis our only intermeadiary with God. ie Us -> Jesus ->God"


Catholics add that you either need to pray to a saint to ask Jesus to ask God, or Mary, his mother.(Mary is seen to have the greatest influence over Jesus), not to forget the icons in catholocism, it seems Mary and the saints are worshipped rather than the Godhead which Idolism is strictly forbidden and the Bible is full of "Don't worship me, Worship God" whether it is Angels or people.

That is why I beleive Catholicism (don't get me started on Mormons) as a religion is not a Christian religion... not saying that all catholics aren't christian just saying Catholicism as a rule isn't.
so you let your utter lack of understanding of catholicism decide their status (or non status) as christians?

most people who would take such a harsh stance would at least study up on it a bit to see if what they think is true really IS true

And you base this hypothesis on what?

i told you "based on the time, place, and events"

thats not the sign of the rapture. the sign is that and i quote... the meaning, dont know it word for word: the false christ (antichrist) will convince the world he is christ and command all nations and tongues. somewhere along the lines of that. then we have 3.5 years till he shows his true self, then 3.5 years till its over, or begins... cant remember damit :eek:

The Seven Year tribulation does not begin until a Peace Treaty is signed with Israel and that the Temple is rebuilt. This will be taking place AFTER the rapture occurs and the Antichrist takes over through peaceful means (the first seal)

There were actually some pretty big fights about this in the early Church, about if Christianity was an outgrowth of Judaism, in which case you must first be a Jew to be a Christian, or if it was something new and better.

Eventually, it was decided that Christianity was NOT a part of Judaism, and that Christians were not bound by the Old Covenant, but by a New Covenant. Jewish Law, as a whole, does not apply to Christians, though parts of it are still revered, though are always secondary to the New Covenant.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why men are not required to be circumcised to become a Christian. Makes for an interesting Scripture reading on Sundays, let me tell you.

So considering that the New Covenant was considered to completely supercede the Jewish Law, I'd say that's a break-away.


We both have reasons for our points of view, but it's not really important or even relating to the thread. So, we'll leave it at that.

Does anybody feel like responding to my post? It's so simple I don't see what you are all getting at. Look up the definition of who a " Christian" is. Catholics and protestants all fit into it. Am I missing somthing? Why cant you all just look at the simple definition?

i told you "based on the time, place, and events"

And what is wrong with what it says in Revelations?

Christian: "Profess belief in Jesus as Christ or follow the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." Both protestants and Catholics do this. That's all there is too it.

Does anybody feel like responding to my post? It's so simple I don't see what you are all getting at. Look up the definition of who a " Christian" is. Catholics and protestants all fit into it. Am I missing somthing? Why cant you all just look at the simple definition?

theres nothing to debate about, like you said. it is a FACT that catholics are christians. but so it doesnt get to contraversy, just admit, like the question asked, are the two similer?

Does anybody feel like responding to my post? It's so simple I don't see what you are all getting at. Look up the definition of who a " Christian" is. Catholics and protestants all fit into it. Am I missing somthing? Why cant you all just look at the simple definition?

ALMS, welcome to the boards first of all. Second, no matter how much logic one uses on these boards, it'll be ignored :D

I agree that both Catholics and Protestants are christians because they both believe in the Lord Savior Jesus Christ.

Catholics do not pray to saints, or to the Virgin Mary, they simply ask them for aid in their prayers. It's why you often see statues of Mary with her palms raised upwards to heaven, but they pray to God like any other Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, etc. I realize that some Christians think Catholics have bastardized Christian faith and aren't really Christians. No belief in the world though changes the fact that they are. I was baptised a Catholic but i am not a practicing one, i disagree with the majority of things they stand for and i am the last person on earth who would defend most of the things they do, but they are indeed Christian.

And what is wrong with what it says in Revelations?

i never said it said anything wrong. just that it seems more of an attack on the roman empire then a prophecy.

theres nothing to debate about, like you said. it is a FACT that catholics are christians. but so it doesnt get to contraversy, just admit, like the question asked, are the two similer?

Duh.

To put in a logical syligism:

All catholics are Christians. All Christians are not catholics.

Well, sort of . . . but you have to make sure to capitalize Catholics if you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise, catholic means the entire Christian Church. Though certain groups might not agree with that, but that is the basic meaning of it (the word catholic means something like 'universal').

Of course, various groups, including the Roman Catholic Church, will contend (at least in their official doctrine, which the average follower doesn't give a damn about, and probably doesn't even know very well) that they are the only true Christians, and the other demoninations are sadly not true Christians in God's eyes.

theres nothing to debate about, like you said. it is a FACT that catholics are christians. but so it doesnt get to contraversy, just admit, like the question asked, are the two similer?

They are similar in that they both follow the same holy book and have the same basic underlying theology which is the teachings of Jesus Christ. Catholicism was founded as an organization by St. Peter and the various protestant denominations were founded by others throughout history. The interpretation and method of interpretation of the Bible varies among the various sects but there is no denial that they are all part of Christianity. How is it that Catholics are not Christians? they "Profess belief in Jesus as Christ or follow the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus."

i never said it said anything wrong. just that it seems more of an attack on the roman empire then a prophecy.

Again, how did you arrive at that conclusion for the events in Revelations has yet to occur just like Ezekial chapters 38 and 39 have yet to occur.

Catholicism is the oldest, and original, Christian denomination.

Thats whack dude - Christianty was born in the 1st century and the term was coined by a group of monotheist jews that believed in Jesus being visited by the Apostle Paul as they called him in the first century.

Catholics were an invention of the Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine 300 years later when it was decided to use the religion to help unite the decaying empire under one common faith. Catholic literally means Universal - they thought they could flex and bend the christian faith into anything they wanted in order to get more loyal taxable subjects under the boot of the emperor and later the Pope, or as they called them in the old roman church system el Potifex Maximus, not a real Christian thing.

But hey! Dont let the truth get in the way of a good story!

ALMS, welcome to the boards first of all. Second, no matter how much logic one uses on these boards, it'll be ignored :D

I agree that both Catholics and Protestants are christians because they both believe in the Lord Savior Jesus Christ.

Thank you. I love your comment about how usless using logic is ...I think I;m learning that. To sum up. Catholics and protestants are Christians. To deny that one of them is Christian is to go outside the basic definition of Christianity and fashion your own. I am an ordained protestant lay minister and I consider Pope Benedict XVI to be the greatest living theologian. This does not make me insane. I am a Christian and so is he. Is that too hard to see?

Thank you. I love your comment about how usless using logic is ...I think I;m learning that. To sum up. Catholics and protestants are Christians. To deny that one of them is Christian is to go outside the basic definition of Christianity and fashion your own. I am an ordained protestant lay minister and I consider Pope Benedict XVI to be the greatest living theologian. This does not make me insane. I am a Christian and so is he. Is that too hard to see?

Not to me my brother in Christ. However, there are people on here will denounce what we believe and will not see the basic truth in what we say.

If by Christian you mean anybody that claims to be a Christian than you really can include Billions of individuals in your count.

If by your definition of Christianity really means those who have a love of the truth, and abide by the principals and teachings of the Christ who is Jesus then this provides for a closer examination of your list of qualifiable denominations, if any.

I think the Catechism and the Bible say two different things in many cases. These are differences in interpretation. But do I walk into a Catholic mass and think, wow, these people don't follow Christianity? NO. That is just silly. The two ways of practicing Christianity are not very different. In fact, can it be denied that every protestant faith is a branch off of the Catholic Church in some way? NO.

Does history allow you the assumption that your faith is the one Jesus professed.

Or do you prefer the short sighted illusion of accepting what youve been told without an examination of the facts?

Whats your definition of Christianity?

If by Christian you mean anybody that claims to be a Christian than you really can include Billions of individuals in your count.

If by your definition of Christianity really means those who have a love of the truth, and abide by the principals and teachings of the Christ who is Jesus then this provides for a closer examination of your list of qualifiable denominations, if any.

Amen. I think that would probably give a list of individuals, not really denominations, though.

Of course, speaking of that, one could do the same thing with Catholics. Technically, anyone that doesn't believe (or maybe just follow) all the teachings and rules of the Catholic Church isn't a Catholic. And thus, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, not properly a Christian.

Whats your definition of Christianity?

Pensia, he's said it several times.

a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior .

Protestantism: the theological system of any of the churches of western Christendom that separated from the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation

Roman catholic Church: The Christian church characterized by an episcopal hierarchy with the pope as its head and belief in seven sacraments and the authority of tradition.

Let me rephrase my question

What are the most important tenets of Christianity in your opinion?
And is your denomination exemplary in its practice? Conceder not just your last mass or visit to your church but the history of your institution.

This debate is like asking which political party is American...The Republicans or the Democrats. A Republican might say only the Republicans. The Democrats might say only the Democrats. In reality, from an outside view, both are indeed part of the American political scene. The Catholic and Protestant churches often condemn each other and debate points. But from a nuetral, definition oriented view they are most certainly based on the same basic principals and religion.

a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior .

"I teach nothing of my own originality, but only what that one tells me to speak I speak," Jesus. He always defered authority to his heavenly Father the creator. And freaquently quoted from the so called Old Testament, the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus was a Jew, and a Monotheist. The name Jesus literally means 'The LORD Saves' and he never claimed to be the Father, or God the Almighty.

Let me rephrase my question

What are the most important tenets of Christianity in your opinion?
And is your denomination exemplary in its practice? Conceder not just your last mass or visit to your church but the history of your institution.

I am a Methodist. We view the most important tenents of Christianity to be the belief in christ's divine nature, the justice of our fellow man as explained by Jesus, and a faith in the moral lessons of the old testament. The methodist church has followed these standards well. From its fight to end slavery to its defense of the traditions of the American family today.

"I teach nothing of my own originality, but only what that one tells me to speak I speak," Jesus. He always defered authority to his heavenly Father the creator. And freaquently quoted from the so called Old Testament, the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus was a Jew, and a Monotheist. The name Jesus literally means 'The LORD Saves' and he never claimed to be the Father, or God the Almighty.

I agree. Other Christians may not based on the way they interpreted the scriptures.

I am a Methodist. We view the most important tenents of Christianity to be the belief in christ's divine nature, the justice of our fellow man as explained by Jesus, and a faith in the moral lessons of the old testament. The methodist church has followed these standards well. From its fight to end slavery to its defense of the traditions of the American family today.

Pretty much an accurate statement :)

alright, we're are getting to in depth with this. The question was whether they are similar. the girls in my class literaly screamed and b*tched that they wernt, so i went here. i could have asked you people whether christianity and islam are similar and you CANT say no. both religions belive in ONE TRUE GOD, so they are similar.

To me the religion's central tenet is Christ Himself and His teachings, especially those regarding tolerance and kindness to one's fellow man. Even if He were not divine, His teachings are of great moral value.

alright, we're are getting to in depth with this. The question was whether they are similar. the girls in my class literaly screamed and b*tched that they wernt, so i went here. i could have asked you people whether christianity and islam are similar and you CANT say no. both religions belive in ONE TRUE GOD, so they are similar.

And Catholics and Christianity are one and the same.

I am a Methodist. We view the most important tenents of Christianity to be the belief in christ's divine nature, the justice of our fellow man as explained by Jesus, and a faith in the moral lessons of the old testament. The methodist church has followed these standards well. From its fight to end slavery to its defense of the traditions of the American family today.

When Jesus was asked - what the greatest commandment of God was - How did he answer?

He gave the greatest law and then listed the second - but he did so quoting from scripture, from the Torah as the Jews call it today. This is what gave Jesus his authority while teaching and God himself gave Jesus his power through out his ministry, because he was teaching the truth about his Father.

The 2 fundamental tenets of Christianity were defined by Jesus himself

You must Love God with your whole heart, soul and mind.
You must Love your neighbor as yourself.

Go to a random protestant service and then go to a random Catholic mass. You will here very very similar things for the most part. not all the time. But most of the things they will talk about will be indentical. I wonder if those girls in your class had ever been to both types of church for comparison.

You must Love God with your whole heart, soul and mind.
You must Love your neighbor as yourself.

And Catholics and Christianity are one and the same.

thank you, were done here.:headbang:

The 2 fundamental tenets of Christianity were defined by Jesus himself

You must Love God with your whole heart, soul and mind.
You must Love your neighbor as yourself.
Amen.

Go to a random protestant service and then go to a random Catholic mass. You will here very very similar things for the most part. not all the time. But most of the things they will talk about will be indentical. I wonder if those girls in your class had ever been to both types of church for comparison.

well ones a Jew and the other a catholic.. hahaha. neither know about heirs or any others religion. they're just "simple minded" to be polite :rolleyes:

thank you, were done here.:headbang:

We've been saying it all throughout the thread.

well ones a Jew and the other a catholic.. hahaha. neither know about heirs or any others religion. they're just "simple minded" to be polite :rolleyes:


haha. Jokes on them I guess.

who are the 4 that were offended by christianty compared to catholicism?

Going over more of Jesus' teachings will provide you with the capacity and wisdom to decide weather the Catholic Church or any other Christian denomination abides by these 2 fundamental principals of Christianity.

For example: on the subject of Christian Neutrality

Jesus said talking with his followers, "you are no part of the world just as I am no part of this world."

When on trial and questioned by the Roman official he said, "my kingdom is not of this source."

The apostle James said, "Friendship with the world means emnity with good, therefore whoever wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God."

This not only allows Christians to go along with the seperation of church and state near perfectly, it does not allow one to pursue any political goal at all if you are professing to be a follower of Christ.

How does the history of your church compare with the history of the first century Christians?

"This not only allows Christians to go along with the seperation of church and state near perfectly, it does not allow one to pursue any political goal at all if you are professing to be a follower of Christ."

How?

Catholicism
Christianity -<
Methodism


And many others. It's really quite simple - as black, white, hispanic and asian people are all humans, all of those similar religions are Christianity in different forms.


As far as the Jesus thing goes, he may or may not have been the direct son of god by blood (:rolleyes: I use the term loosely, god doesn't have blood) but regardless of whether he was god himself incarnated or his son sent to earth, or just some random dude with new ideas, he was holy regardless in the purest sense because of how he acted and what he did. He lived as a good person, and encouraged others to do the same. Maybe instead of arguing over technicalities, like if he actually had god's bloodline or not, we should pay more attention to the message and example he set.

:p hasn't it been said enough that we were done? i was just trying to vent some frustration from class. but i guess we can go on about the teaching of Christianity. who know, we might convert 1 or 2 people :p

"Maybe instead of arguing over technicalities, like if he actually had god's bloodline or not, we should pay more attention to the message and example he set."

Excellent point.

Great discussion.

"This not only allows Christians to go along with the seperation of church and state near perfectly, it does not allow one to pursue any political goal at all if you are professing to be a follower of Christ."

How?

Have you even read the bible?

First century Christians were hated, hunted down and ran out of towns if not plain old fashion killed. This changed when they compromised and excepted Emperor Constantine to proside over the council of Nicean where they decided on serveral things that would make the faith universal and agreeable to the majority. Including of being politically useful to the rulers of the Roman Empire instead of a constant annoyance to its power structure, emperor worship.

First century Christians were so different from the sects and divisions that followed just a 100 years after christ was killed that it was clearly noteable to contemporary historians.

Do your homework - but dont believe everything you read. Do some critical thinking for yourself and try to develope a love for the truth no matter where it leads you.

wanna know something really funny.... get ready.... ready.... ok here it is

this all started because we were debating whether the Da vinci code was an attack on christianity.... but wait it gets better.... i was the one that said lutheran, babtiste.... and right when i said catholicism was another form of chrsitianity their hands flew up and all hell broke loose. :headbang:

Catholicism
Christianity -<
Methodism





Actually its more like this
Christianity - including the apostles and eye witnesses of Jesus' ministry
Conflicting sects and divisions - hundreds of them just within 200-300 years after Jesus was executed
Then Catholisim - uniting the sects and divisions into a more Universally acceptable doctrine and the new state sponsored religion of the "Holy Roman Empire"
Protestant - never quite shaking off the old roman church traditions and beliefs
Other sects and divisions - also very similar to catholism, and in my opinion still far from the true meaning of Christianity.

I saw the Da Vinci Code - didnt bother reading the book - but the Movie was entertaining.

Just dont go to the movies to learn about God! eh? :D

Christianity and HINDUISM are similar. All religions are similar, in that their main principle is always peace, charity, and all that stuff. Very few religions fall outside of that main framework, and VERY few actually encourage evil.

Christianity and HINDUISM are similar. All religions are similar, in that their main principle is always peace, charity, and all that stuff. Very few religions fall outside of that main framework, and VERY few actually encourage evil.

the only one i can think of that teached evil is Stanism, but that goes in to the "true questions of life." good and evil are just opinions. and if you look at this way, you'de see that with out evil there is no good

Catholics do not pray to saints, or to the Virgin Mary, they simply ask them for aid in their prayers. It's why you often see statues of Mary with her palms raised upwards to heaven, but they pray to God like any other Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, etc. I realize that some Christians think Catholics have bastardized Christian faith and aren't really Christians. No belief in the world though changes the fact that they are. I was baptised a Catholic but i am not a practicing one, i disagree with the majority of things they stand for and i am the last person on earth who would defend most of the things they do, but they are indeed Christian.

I agree that Catholics as a whole aren't worshipping saints, although a few definitely take it too far. However, what they are engaging in that is very sinful is necromany, contact or attempted contact with the dead. Necromancy is expressly forbidden by the Bible yet most Catholics engage in it on a daily basis. In light of this I am undecided as to whether or not mainstream Catholics are true Christians or just pretend to be one.

I agree that Catholics as a whole aren't worshipping saints, although a few definitely take it too far. However, what they are engaging in that is very sinful is necromany, contact or attempted contact with the dead. Necromancy is expressly forbidden by the Bible yet most Catholics engage in it on a daily basis. In light of this I am undecided as to whether or not mainstream Catholics are true Christians or just pretend to be one.
Do explain, how do we engage in necromancy?

Christianity and HINDUISM are similar. All religions are similar, in that their main principle is always peace, charity, and all that stuff. Very few religions fall outside of that main framework, and VERY few actually encourage evil.

I agree every religion to be taken seriously encourages its members to be good and to do good.

But Christianity and Hinduism are fundamentali different in that Hindis have a Pantheon of Gods like the Ancient Greeks, Babylonians and Persians - where as Chrisitanity was at least in the begining one of the 3 Monotheistic Religions to come out of the middle-east, among Judaism and Islam.

Do explain, how do we engage in necromancy?

Contact with the dead is expressly forbiden and actually punishable by death according to the old mosaic law.

Ghost of dead loved ones dont comeback to haunt the living, they arent the ones really talking.

Contact with the dead is expressly forbiden and actually punishable by death according to the old mosaic law.

Ghost of dead loved ones dont comeback to haunt the living, they arent the ones really talking.
So where do we talk to the dead? (I hope you are not referring to prayers to Saints)

So where do we talk to the dead? (I hope you are not referring to prayers to Saints)

Uhmm you may not personnally be familiar with the practice, just be thankful and leave it at that. As it was already stated above not all catholics practice or believe the same thing.

*idiocy sinipped*


I'm getting incredibly tired of self-righteous ill-informed, and frankly, ignorant fundies saying stupid crap like that. Catholicism is a branch of Christianity. I don't care if you don't believe that, your mistaken belief does not make it true. Saying it in size 7 font most definitely does not make it true. It just makes you look like a fool.:mad:

Uhmm you may not personnally be familiar with the practice, just be thankful and leave it at that. As it was already stated above not all catholics practice or believe the same thing.
Specify what you are referring to then.

I agree that Catholics as a whole aren't worshipping saints, although a few definitely take it too far. However, what they are engaging in that is very sinful is necromany, contact or attempted contact with the dead. Necromancy is expressly forbidden by the Bible yet most Catholics engage in it on a daily basis. In light of this I am undecided as to whether or not mainstream Catholics are true Christians or just pretend to be one.


I'll respond to this nonsense as soon as you explain what the hell you're talking about. :confused:

As far as the christian standard for prayers - I sudgest you look over the relevant bible principals.

Jesus always prayed to his heavenly father - not through some saint - like Abraham couldve been a comparable saint to Jesus at the time, or Moses, Daniel or Jacob. But he did not.

Secondly to addressing prayers to the almighty as Jesus did - Jesus said whatever you ask of the Father in my name I will give it. So Christians believe it is appropriate to conclude a prayer in Jesus' name and an Amen.

For information about thing of primary interest to christians when praying and for what is and is not appropreate to pray for - you should look over the Lords Prayer, or "Thy Kingdom come" prayer in the gospel. I think its at Mathew 6. Before the model prayer Jesus also list certain conditions neccesary before the prayer. Read the entire chapter to get a feel for the way 1st century christians prayed and compare.

Is that the way you guys Pray?

I'll respond to this nonsense as soon as you explain what the hell you're talking about. :confused:

Main Entry: nec·ro·man·cy
Pronunciation: 'ne-kr&-"man(t)-sE
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of Middle English nigromancie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin nigromantia, by folk etymology from Late Latin necromantia, from Late Greek nekromanteia, from Greek nekr- + -manteia -mancy
1 : conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events
2 : MAGIC, SORCERY
- nec·ro·man·cer /-s&r/ noun
- nec·ro·man·tic /"ne-kr&-'man-tik/ adjective
- nec·ro·man·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

:rolleyes:

Steer clear of this junk I would if I were you, yes I would

All forms of spiritism(another word for it) is forbiden by scripture.
clearR m8?

*snip*
We are well aware of what necromancy means. Be specific as to how this relates to Catholicism.

Secondly to addressing prayers to the almighty as Jesus did - Jesus said whatever you ask of the Father in my name I will give it. So Christians believe it is appropriate to conclude a prayer in Jesus' name and an Amen.

Essentially how I pray.

We are well aware of what necromancy means. Be specific as to how this relates to Catholicism.

It doesnt officially.

It is also forbiden according to your own Catholic Encyclopeadia

But once again that doesnt mean there arent some professed Catholics who practice it - although it may be more popular among other Protestants sects.

I apologize for implying that you do - and congradulate you for being a babe as to badness as a scripture puts it. LOL :D

Goodnight people!

I agree that Catholics as a whole aren't worshipping saints, although a few definitely take it too far. However, what they are engaging in that is very sinful is necromany, contact or attempted contact with the dead. Necromancy is expressly forbidden by the Bible yet most Catholics engage in it on a daily basis. In light of this I am undecided as to whether or not mainstream Catholics are true Christians or just pretend to be one.

Maybe you know something we dont.

As far as the christian standard for prayers - I sudgest you look over the relevant bible principals.

Jesus always prayed to his heavenly father - not through some saint - like Abraham couldve been a comparable saint to Jesus at the time, or Moses, Daniel or Jacob. But he did not.

Secondly to addressing prayers to the almighty as Jesus did - Jesus said whatever you ask of the Father in my name I will give it. So Christians believe it is appropriate to conclude a prayer in Jesus' name and an Amen.

For information about thing of primary interest to christians when praying and for what is and is not appropreate to pray for - you should look over the Lords Prayer, or "Thy Kingdom come" prayer in the gospel. I think its at Mathew 6. Before the model prayer Jesus also list certain conditions neccesary before the prayer. Read the entire chapter to get a feel for the way 1st century christians prayed and compare.

Is that the way you guys Pray?

So, once again a Catholic NSer has to explain to an obnoxious, condescending Fundie "intercession" and "communion of the saints", eh? Well, you'll just say "no, no. that's not what you believe! you're lying!" like you people always do, but here goes.


Intercession (Mediation)

To intercede is to go or come between two parties, to plead before one of them on behalf of the other. In the New Testament it is used as the equivalent of entygchanein (Vulg. interpellare, in Hebrews 7:25). "Mediation" means a standing in the midst between two (contending) parties, for the purpose of bringing them together (cf. mediator, mesites, 1 Timothy 2:5).

In ecclesiastical usage both words are taken in the sense of the intervention primarily of Christ, and secondarily of the Blessed Virgin and the angels and saints, on behalf of men. It would be better, however, to restrict the word mediation to the action of Christ, and intercession to the action of the Blessed Virgin, the angels, and the saints. In this article we shall briefly deal with: I. the Mediation of Christ; and at more length with, II. the intercession of the saints.

I. THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST
In considering the Mediation of Christ we must distinguish between His position and His office. As God-man He stands in the midst between God and man partaking of the natures of both, and therefore, by that very fact, fitted to act as Mediator between them. He is, indeed, the Mediator in the absolute sense of the word, in a way that no one else can possibly be. "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). He is united to both: "The head of every man is Christ... the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3). His office of Mediator belongs to Him as man, His human nature is the principium quo, but the value of His action is derived from the fact that it is a Divine Person Who acts. The main object of His mediation is to restore the friendship between God and man. This is attained first by the meriting of grace and remission of sin, by means of the worship and satisfaction offered to God by and through Christ. But, besides bringing man nigh unto God, Christ brings God nigh unto man, by revealing to man Divine truths and commands — He is the Apostle sent by God to us and the High-Priest leading us on to God (Hebrews 3:1). Even in the physical order the mere fact of Christ's existence is in itself a mediation between God and man. By uniting our humanity to His Divinity He united us to God and God to us. As St. Athanasius says, "Christ became man that men might become gods" ("De Incarn.", n. 54; cf. St. Augustine, "Serm. De Nativitate Dom."; St. Thomas, III, Q. i, a. 2). And for this Christ prayed: "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee. . . . I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one" (John 17:21-23). The subject of Christ's mediation belongs properly to the articles ATONEMENT; JESUS CHRIST; REDEMPTION. See also St. Thomas, III, Q. xxvi; and the treatises on the Incarnation.

II. INTERCESSION AND INVOCATION
We shall here speak not only of intercession, but also of the invocation of the saints. The one indeed implies the other; we should not call upon the saints for aid unless they could help us. The foundation of both lies in the doctrine of the communion of saints. In the article on this subject it has been shown that the faithful in heaven, on earth, and in purgatory are one mystical body, with Christ for their head. All that is of interest to one part is of interest to the rest, and each helps the rest: we on earth by honouring and invoking the saints and praying for the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven by interceding for us. The Catholic doctrine of intercession and invocation is set forth by the Council of Trent, which teaches that

the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their own prayers to God for men. It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour. Those persons think impiously who deny that the Saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invoked; or who assert either that they do not pray for men, or that the invocation of them to pray for each of us is idolatry, or that it is repugnant to the word of God, and is opposed to the honour of the one Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ (Sess. XXV).
This had already been explained by St. Thomas:
Prayer is offered to a person in two ways: one as though to be granted by himself, another as to be obtained through him. In the first way we pray to God alone, because all our prayers ought to be directed to obtaining grace and glory which God alone gives, according to those words of the Psalm (lxxxiii, 12): 'The Lord will give grace and glory.' But in the second way we pray to the holy angels and to men not that God may learn our petition through them, but that by their prayers and merits our prayers may be efficacious. Wherefore it is said in the Apocalypse (viii, 4): 'And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel' (Summ. Theol., II-II, Q. lxxxiii, a. 4).
The reasonableness of the Catholic teaching and practice cannot be better stated than in St. Jerome's words:
If the Apostles and Martyrs, while still in the body, can pray for others, at a time when they must still be anxious for themselves, how much more after their crowns, victories, and triumphs are won! One man, Moses, obtains from God pardon for six hundred thousand men in arms; and Stephen, the imitator of the Lord, and the first martyr in Christ, begs forgiveness for his persecutors; and shall their power be less after having begun to be with Christ? The Apostle Paul declares that two hundred three score and sixteen souls, sailing with him, were freely given him; and, after he is dissolved and has begun to be with Christ, shall he close his lips, and not be able to utter a word in behalf of those who throughout the whole world believed at his preaching of the Gospel? And shall the living dog Vigilantius be better than that dead lion? ("Contra Vigilant.", n. 6, in P. L., XXIII, 344).
The chief objections raised against the intercession and invocation of the saints are that these doctrines are opposed to the faith and trust which we should have in God alone; that they are a denial of the all-sufficient merits of Christ; and that they cannot be proved from Scripture and the Fathers. Thus Article 22 of the Anglican Church says: "The Romish doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."

(1) In the article ADORATION it has been clearly shown that the honour paid to angels and saints is entirely different from the supreme honour due to God alone, and is indeed paid to them only as His servants and friends. "By honouring the Saints who have slept in the Lord, by invoking their intercession and venerating their relics and ashes, so far is the glory of God from being diminished that it is very much increased, in proportion as the hope of men is thus more excited and confirmed, and they are encouraged to the imitation of the Saints" (Cat. of the Council of Trent, pt. III, c. ii, q. 11). We can, of course, address our prayers directly to God, and He can hear us without the intervention of any creature. But this does not prevent us from asking the help of our fellow-creatures who may be more pleasing to Him than we are. It is not because our faith and trust in Him are weak, nor because His goodness and mercy to us are less; rather is it because we are encouraged by His precepts to approach Him at times through His servants, as we shall presently see. As pointed out by St. Thomas, we invoke the angels and saints in quite different language from that addressed to God. We ask Him to have mercy upon us and Himself to grant us whatever we require; whereas we ask the saints to pray for us, i.e. to join their petitions with ours. However, we should here bear in mind Bellarmine's remarks: "When we say that nothing should be asked of the saints but their prayer for us, the question is not about the words, but the sense of the words. For as far as the words go, it is lawful to say: 'St. Peter, pity me, save me, open for me the gate of heaven'; also, 'Give me health of body, patience, fortitude', etc., provided that we mean 'save and pity me by praying for me'; 'grant me this or that by thy prayers and merits.' For so speaks Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xviii — according to others, xxiv — "De S. Cypriano" in P. G., XXXV, 1193; "Orat. de S. Athan.: In Laud. S. Athanas.", Orat. xxi, in P. G., XXXV, 1128); in "De Sanct. Beatif.", I, 17. The supreme act of impetration, sacrifice, is never offered to any creature. "Although the Church has been accustomed at times to celebrate certain Masses in honour and memory of the Saints, it does not follow that she teaches that sacrifice is offered unto them, but unto God alone, who crowned them; whence neither is the priest wont to say 'I offer sacrifice to thee, Peter, or Paul', but, giving thanks to God for their victories, he implores their patronage, that they may vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we celebrate upon earth" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, c. iii). The Collyridians, or Philomarianites, offered little cakes in sacrifice to the Mother of God; but the practice was condemned by St. Epiphanius (Hær., lxxix, in P. G., XLI, 740); Leontius Byzant., "Contra Nest. et Eutych.", III, 6, in P. G., LXXXVI, 1364; and St. John of Damascus (Hær., lxxix, in P. G., XCIV, 728).

(2) The doctrine of one Mediator, Christ, in no way excludes the invocation and intercession of saints. All merit indeed comes through Him; but this does not make it unlawful to ask our fellow-creatures, whether here on earth or already in heaven, to help us by their prayers. The same Apostle who insists so strongly on the sole mediatorship of Christ, earnestly begs the prayers of his brethren: "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God" (Romans 15:30); and he himself prays for them: "I give thanks to my God in every remembrance of you, always in all my prayers making supplication for you all" (Phil., i, 3, 4). If the prayers of the brethren on earth do not derogate from the glory and dignity of the Mediator, Christ, neither do the prayers of the saints in heaven.

(3) As regards the proof from Holy Scripture and the Fathers, we can show that the principle and the practice of invoking the aid of our fellow-creatures are clearly laid down in both. That the angels have an interest in the welfare of men is clear from Christ's words: "There shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance" (Luke 15:10). In verse 7 He says simply: "There shall be joy in heaven". Cf. Matt., xviii, 10; Heb., i, 14. That the angels pray for men is plain from the vision of the Prophet Zacharias: "And the angel of the Lord answered, and said: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem . . . and the Lord answered the angel . . . good words, comfortable words" (Zechariah 1:12, 13). And the angel Raphael says: "When thou didst pray with tears . . . I offered thy prayer to the Lord" (Tob., xii, 12) The combination of the prayers both of angels and saints is seen in the vision of St. John: "And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel" (Revelation 8:3-4). God Himself commanded Abimelech to have recourse to Abraham's intercession: "He shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live. . . . And when Abraham prayed, God healed Abimelech" (Genesis 20:7, 17). So, too, in the case of Job's friends He said: "Go to my servant Job, and offer for yourselves a holocaust; and my servant Job shall pray for you: his face I will accept" (Job 42:8). Intercession is indeed prominent in several passages in this same Book of Job: "Call now if there be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints' (v, 1);" If there shall be an angel speaking for him . . . He shall have mercy on him, and shall say: Deliver him, that he may not go down to corruption" (xxxiii, 23). "They [the angels] appear as intercessors for men with God, bringing men's needs before Him, mediating in their behalf. This work is easily connected with their general office of labouring for the good of men" (Dillman on Job, p. 44). Moses is constantly spoken of as "mediator': "I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you" (Deuteronomy 5:5; cf. Galatians 3:19, 20). It is true that in none of the passages of the Old Testament mention is made of prayer to the saints, i. e; holy men already departed from this life; but this is in keeping with the imperfect knowledge of the state of the dead, who were still in Limbo. The general principle of intercession and invocation of fellow-creatures is, however, stated in terms which admit of no denial; and this principle would in due course be applied to the saints as soon as their position was defined. In the New Testament the number of the saints already departed would be comparatively small in the early days.

The greatest of the Fathers in the succeeding centuries speak plainly both of the doctrine and practice of intercession and invocation. "But not the High-Priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep (ai te ton prokekoimemenon hagion psychai, Origen, "De Oratione", n. xi, in P. G., XI, 448). In many other places Origen uses similar expressions; indeed it may be said that there is hardly any treatise or homily in which he does not refer to the intercession of the angels and saints. St. Cyprian, writing to Pope Cornelius, says: "Let us be mutually mindful of each other, let us ever pray for each other, and if one of us shall, by the speediness of the Divine vouchsafement, depart hence first, let our love continue in the presence of the Lord, let not prayer for our brethren and sisters cease in the presence of the mercy of the Father" (Ep. lvii, in P. L., IV, 358). "To those who would fain stand, neither the guardianship of saints nor the defences of angels are wanting" (St. Hilary, "In Ps. cxxiv", n. 5, 6, in P. L., X, 682). "We then commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God, by their prayers and intercessions, may receive our petitions" (St. Cyril of Jerus., "Cat. Myst.", v, n. 9) in P. G., XXXIII, 1166). "Remember me, ye heirs of God, ye brethren of Christ, supplicate the Saviour earnestly for me, that I may be freed though Christ from him that fights against me day by day" (St. Ephraem Syrus, "De Timore Anim." ,in fin.). "Ye victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Saviour; ye who have boldness of speech towards the Lord Himself; ye saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us that so we may love him" (St. Ephraem, "Encom. in Mart."). "Do thou, [Ephraem] that art standing at the Divine altar, and art ministering with angels to the life-giving and most Holy Trinity, bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom" (St. Gregory of Nyssa, "De vita Ephraemi", in fin., P. G., XLVI, 850). "Mayest thou [Cyprian] look down from above propitiously upon us, and guide our word and life; and shepherd [or shepherd with me] this sacred flock . . . gladdening us with a more perfect and clear illumination of the Holy Trinity, before Which thou standest" (St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. xvii — according to others, xxiv — "De S. Cypr.", P. G., XXXV, 1193). In like manner does Gregory pray to St. Athanasius (Orat. xxi, "In laud. S. Athan.", P. G., XXXV, 1128). "O holy choir! O sacred band! O unbroken host of warriors! O common guardians of the human race! Ye gracious sharers of our cares! Ye co-operators in our prayer! Most powerful intercessors!" (St.Basil, "Hom. in XL Mart.", P. G., XXXI, 524). "May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn towards us Christ's benignant countenance" (St. Ambrose, "Hexaem.", V, xxv, n. 90, in P. L., XIV, 242). St. Jerome has been quoted above. St. John Chrysostom frequently speaks of invocation and intercession in his homilies on the saints, e. g. "When thou perceivest that God is chastening thee, fly not to His enemies . . . but to His friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleasing to Him, and who have great power" (parresian, "boldness of speech" — Orat. VIII, "Adv. Jud.", n. 6, in P. G., XLVIII, 937). "He that wears the purple, laying aside his pomp, stands begging of the saints to be his patrons with God; and he that wears the diadem begs the Tent-maker and the Fisherman as patrons, even though they be dead" ("Hom. xxvi, in II Ep. ad Cor.", n. 5, in P. G., LXI, 581). "At the Lord's table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps" (St. Augustine, "In Joann.", tr. lxxxiv, in P. L., XXXIV, 1847).

Prayers to the saints occur in almost all the ancient liturgies. Thus in the Liturgy of St. Basil: "By the command of Thine only-begotten Son we communicate with the memory of Thy saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have mercy upon us all, and deliver us for the sake of Thy holy name which is invoked upon us". Cf. the Liturgy of Jerusalem, the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, the Liturgy of Nestorius, the Coptic Liturgy of St. Cyril, etc. That these commemorations are not later additions is manifest from the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "We then commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God by their prayers and intercessions may receive our petitions" ("Cat. Myst.", v, in P. G., XXXIII, 1113). (See Renaudot, "Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio", Paris, 1716.)

We readily admit that the doctrine of the intercession of the saints is a development from the teaching of Scripture and that the practice is open to abuse. But if the carefully-worded and wholesome decrees of the Council of Trent be adhered to, there is nothing in the doctrine or practice which deserves the condemnation expressed in Article xxii of the Anglican religion. Indeed the High Church Anglicans contend that it is not the invocation of saints that is here rejected, but only the "Romish doctrine ", i. e. the excesses prevailing at the time and afterwards condemned by the Council of Trent. "In principle there is no question herein between us and any other portion of the Catholic Church. . . . Let not that most ancient custom, common to the Universal Church, as well Greek as Latin, of addressing Angels and Saints in the way we have said, be condemned as impious, or as vain and foolish" [Forbes, Bishop of Brechin (Anglican), "Of the Thirty-nine Articles", p. 422]. The reformed Churches, as a body, reject the invocation of the saints. Article xxi of the Augsburg Confession says: "Scripture does not teach us to invoke the Saints, or to ask for help from the Saints; for it puts before us Christ as the one mediator, propitiatory, high-priest and intercessor." In the "Apology of the Augsburg Confession" (ad art. xxi, sects. 3, 4), it is admitted that the angels pray for us, and the saints, too, "for the Church in general"; but this does not imply that they are to be invoked. The Calvinists, however, reject both intercession and invocation as an imposture and delusion of Satan, since thereby the right manner of praying is prevented, and the saints know nothing of us, and have no concern as to what passes on earth

The doctrine expressed in the second clause of the ninth article in the received text of the Apostles' Creed: "I believe . . . the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints". This, probably the latest, addition to the old Roman Symbol is found in:

the Gallican Liturgy of the seventh century (P.L., LXXII, 349, 597);
in some letters of the Pseudo-Augustine (P. L., XXXIX, 2189, 2191, 2194), now credited to St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 543);
in the "De Spiritu Sancto" (P. L., LXII, 11), ascribed to Faustus of Riez (c. 460);
in the "Explanatio Symboli" (P. L., LII, 871) of Nicetas of Remesiana (c. 400); and
in two documents of uncertain date, the "Fides Hieronymi", and an Armenian confession.
On these facts critics have built various theories. Some hold the addition to be a protest against Vigilantius, who condemned the veneration of the saints; and he connects that protest with Faustus in Southern Gaul and probably also with Nicetas in Pannonia, who was influenced by the "Catecheses" of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Others see in it at first a reaction against the separatism of the Donatists, therefore an African and Augustinian conception bearing only on church membership, the higher meaning of fellowship with the departed saints having been introduced later by Faustus. Still others think that it originated, with an anti-Donatist meaning, in Armenia, whence it passed to Pannonia, Gaul, the British Isles, Spain, etc., gathering new meanings in the course of its travels till it finally resulted in the Catholic synthesis of medieval theologians. These and many other conjectures leave undisturbed the traditional doctrine, according to which the communion of saints, wheresoever it was introduced into the Creed, is the natural outgrowth of Scriptural teaching, and chiefly of the baptismal formula; still the value of the dogma does not rest on the solution of that historical problem.
Catholic Doctrine

The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (1 Corinthians 1:2 &151; Greek Text). The damned are thus excluded from the communion of saints. The living, even if they do not belong to the body of the true Church, share in it according to the measure of their union with Christ and with the soul of the Church. St. Thomas teaches (III:8:4) that the angels, though not redeemed, enter the communion of saints because they come under Christ's power and receive of His gratia capitis. The solidarity itself implies a variety of inter-relations: within the Church Militant, not only the participation in the same faith, sacraments, and government, but also a mutual exchange of examples, prayers, merits, and satisfactions; between the Church on earth on the one hand, and purgatory and heaven on the other, suffrages, invocation, intercession, veneration. These connotations belong here only in so far as they integrate the transcendent idea of spiritual solidarity between all the children of God. Thus understood, the communion of saints, though formally defined only in its particular bearings (Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, decrees on purgatory; on the invocation, veneration, and relics of saints and of sacred images; on indulgences), is, nevertheless, dogma commonly taught and accepted in the Church. It is true that the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Pt. I, ch. x) seems at first sight to limit to the living the bearing of the phrase contained in the Creed, but by making the communion of saints an exponent and function, as it were, of the preceding clause, "the Holy Catholic Church", it really extends to what it calls the Church's "constituent parts, one gone before, the other following every day"; the broad principle it enunciates thus: "every pious and holy action done by one belongs and is profitable to all, through charity which seeketh not her own".

In this vast Catholic conception rationalists see not only a late creation, but also an ill-disguised reversion to a lower religious type, a purely mechanical process of justification, the substitution of impersonal moral value in lieu of personal responsibility. Such statements are met best, by the presentation of the dogma in its Scriptural basis and its theological formulation. The first spare yet clear outline of the communion of saints is found in the "kingdom of God" of the Synoptics, not the individualistic creation of Harnack nor the purely eschatological conception of Loisy, but an organic whole (Matthew 13:31), which embraces in the bonds of charity (Matthew 22:39) all the children of God (Matthew 19:28; Luke 20:36) on earth and in heaven (Matthew 6:20), the angels themselves joining in that fraternity of souls (Luke 15:10). One cannot read the parables of the kingdom (Matthew 13) without perceiving its corporate nature and the continuity which links together the kingdom in our midst and the kingdom to come. The nature of that communion, called by St. John a fellowship with one another ("a fellowship with us"--1 John 1:3) because it is a fellowship with the Father, and with his Son", and compared by him to the organic and vital union of the vine and its branches (John 15), stands out in bold relief in the Pauline conception of the mystical body. Repeatedly St. Paul speaks of the one body whose head is Christ (Colossians 1:18), whose energizing principle is charity (Ephesians 4:16), whose members are the saints, not only of this world, but also of the world to come (Ephesians 1:20; Hebrews 12:22). In that communion there is no loss of individuality, yet such an interdependence that the saints are "members one of another" (Romans 12:5), not only sharing the same blessings (1 Corinthians 12:13) and exchanging good offices (ibid., xii, 25) and prayers (Ephesians 6:18), but also partaking of the same corporate life, for "the whole body . . . by what every joint supplieth . . . maketh increase . . . unto the edifying of itself in charity" (Ephesians 4:16).

Recent well-known researches in Christian epigraphy have brought out clear and abundant proof of the principal manifestations of the communion of saints in the early Church. Similar evidence, is to be found in the Apostolic Fathers with an occasional allusion to the Pauline conception. For an attempt at the formulation of the dogma we have to come down to the Alexandrian School. Clement of Alexandria shows the "gnostic's" ultimate relations with the angels (Strom., VI, xii, 10) and the departed souls (ibid., VIII, xii, 78); and he all but formulates the thesaurus ecclesiae in his presentation of the vicarious martyrdom, not of Christ alone, but also of the Apostles and other martyrs (ibid., IV, xii, 87). Origen enlarges, almost to exaggeration, on the idea of vicarious martyrdom (Exhort. ad martyr., ch. 1) and of communion between man and angels (De orat., xxxi); and accounts for it by the unifying power of Christ's Redemption), ut caelestibus terrena sociaret (In Levit., hom. iv) and the force of charity, stranger in heaven than upon earth (De orat., xi). With St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom the communion of saints has become an obvious tenet used as an answer to such popular objections as these: what, need of a communion with others? (Basil, Ep. cciii) another has sinned and I shall atone? (Chrysostom, Hom. i, de poenit.). St. John Damascene has only to collect the sayings of the Fathers in order to support the dogma of the invocation of the saints and the prayers for the dead.

But the complete presentation of the dogma comes from the later Fathers. After the statements of Tertullian, speaking of "common hope, fear, joy, sorrow, and suffering" (De poenit., ix and x); of St. Cyprian, explicitly setting forth the communion of merits (De lapsis, xvii); of St. Hilary, giving the Eucharistic Communion as a means and symbol of the communion of saints (in Ps. lxiv, 14), we come to the teaching of Ambrose and St. Augustine. From the former, the thesaurus ecclesiae, the best practical test of the reunion of saints, receives a definite explanation (De poenit., I, xv; De officiis, I, xix). In the transcendent view of the Church taken by the latter (Enchir., lvi) the communion of saints, though never so called by him, is a necessity; to the Civitas Dei must needs correspond the unitas caritatis (De unitate eccl., ii), which embraces in an effective union the saints and angels in heaven (Enarr. in Psalmos, XXXVI, iii, 4), the just on earth (De bapt., III, xvii), and in a lower degree, the sinners themselves, the putrida membra of the mystic body; only the declared heretics, schismatics, and apostates are excluded from the society, though not from the prayers, of the saints (Serm. cxxxvii). The Augustinian concept, though somewhat obscured in the catechetical expositions of the Creed by the Carlovingian and later theologians (P. L., XCIX, CI, CVIII, CX, CLII, CLXXXVI), takes its place in the medieval synthesis of Peter Lombard, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, etc.

Influenced no doubt by early writers like Yvo of Chartres (P. L., CLXII, 606l), Abelard (P. L. CLXXXIII, 630), and probably Alexander of Hales (III, Q. lxix, a, 1), St. Thomas (Expos. in symb. 10) reads in the neuter the phrase of the Creed, communio sanctorum (participation of spiritual goods), but apart from the point of grammar his conception of the dogma is thorough. General principle; the merits of Christ are communicated to all, and the merits of each one are communicated to the others (ibid.). The manner of participation: both objective and intentional, in radice operis, ex intentione facientis (Supp., 71:1). The measure: the degree of charity (Expos. in symb., 10). The benefits communicated: not the sacraments alone but, the superabundant merits of Christ and the saints forming the thesaurus ecclesia (ibid. and Quodlib., II, Q. viii, a. 16). The participants: the three parts of the Church (Expos. in symb., 9); consequently the faithful on earth exchanging merits and satisfactions (I-II:113:6, and Suppl., 13:2), the souls in purgatory profiting by the suffrages of the living and the intercession of the saints (Suppl., 71), the saints themselves receiving honour and giving intercession (II-II:83:4, II-II:83:11, III:25:6), and also the angels, as noted above. Later Scholastics and post-Reformation theologians have added little to the Thomistic presentation of the dogma. They worked rather around than into it, defending such points as were attacked by heretics, showing the religious, ethical, and social value of the Catholic conception; and they introduced the distinction between the body and the soul of the Church, between actual membership and membership in desire, completing the theory of the relations between church membership and the communion of saints which had already been outlined by St. Optatus of Mileve and St. Augustine at the time of the Donatist controversy. One may regret the plan adopted by the Schoolmen afforded no comprehensive view of the whole dogma, bur rather scattered the various components of it through a vast synthesis. This accounts for the fact that a compact exposition of the communion of saints is to be sought less in the works of our standard theologians than in our catechetical, apologetic, pastoral, and even ascetic literature. It may also partly explain, without excusing them, the gross misrepresentations noticed above.

In the Anglo-Saxon Church

That the Anglo-Saxons held the doctrine of the communion of saints may be judged from the following account given by Lingard in his "History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church." They received the practice of venerating the saints, he says, together with the rudiments the Christian religion; and they manifested their devotion to them both in public and private worship: in public, by celebrating the anniversaries of individual saints, and keeping annually the feast of All-Hallows as a solemnity of the first class; and in their private devotions, by observing the instructions to worship God and then to "pray, first to Saint Mary, and the holy apostles, and the holy martyrs, and all God's saints, that they would intercede for them to God". In this way they learned to look up to the saints in heaven with feelings of confidence and affection, to consider them as friends and protectors, and to implore their aid in the hour of distress, with the hope that God would grant to the patron what he might otherwise refuse to the supplicant.

Like all other Christians, the Anglo-Saxons held in special veneration "the most holy mother of God, the perpetual virgin Saint Mary" (Beatissima Dei genitrix et perpetua virgo.-Bede, Hom. in Purif.). Her praises were sung by the Saxon poets; hymns in her honour were chanted in the public service; churches and altars were placed under her patronage; miraculous cures were ascribed to her; and four annual feasts were observed commemorating the principal events of her mortal life: her nativity, the Annunciation, her purification, and assumption. Next to the Blessed Virgin in the devotion was Saint Peter, whom Christ had chosen for the leader of the Apostles and to whom he had given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, "with the chief exercise of judicial power in the Church, to the end that all might know that whosoever should separate himself from the unity of Peter's faith or of Peter's fellowship, that man could never attain absolution from the bonds of sin, nor admission through the gates of the heavenly kingdom" (Bede). These words of the Venerable Bede refer, it is true, to Peter's successors as well as to Peter himself, but they also evidence the veneration of Anglo-Saxons for the Prince of the Apostles, a veneration which they manifested in the number of churches dedicated to his memory, in the pilgrimages made to his tomb, and by the presents sent to the church in which his remains rested and to the bishop who sat in his chair. Particular honours were paid also to Saints Gregory and Augustine, to whom they were chiefly indebted for their knowledge of Christianity. They called Gregory their "foster-father in Christ" and themselves "his foster-children in baptism"; and spoke of Augustine as "the first to bring to them the doctrine of faith, the sacrament of baptism, and the knowledge of their heavenly country". While these saints were honoured by the whole people, each separate nation revered the memory of its own apostle. Thus Saint Aidan in Northumbria, Saint Birinus in Wessex, and Saint Felix in East Anglia were venerated as the protectors of the countries which had been the scenes of their labours. All the saints so far mentioned were of foreign extraction; but the Anglo-Saxons soon extended their devotion to men who had been born and educated among them and who by their virtues and zeal in propagating Christianity had merited the honours of sanctity.

This account of the devotion of the Anglo-Saxons to those whom they looked up to as their friends and protectors in heaven is necessarily brief, but it is amply sufficient to show that they believed and loved the doctrine of the communion of saints.

Protestant Views

Sporadic errors against special points of the communion of saints are pointed out by the Synod of Gangra (Mansi, II, 1103), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (P. G., XXXIII, 1116), St. Epiphanius (ibid., XLII, 504), Asteritis Amasensis (ibid., XL, 332), and St. Jerome (P. L., XXIII, 362). From the forty-second proposition condemned, and the twenty-ninth question asked, by Martin V at Constance (Denzinger, nos. 518 and 573), we also know that Wyclif and Hus had gone far towards denying the dogma itself. But the communion of saints became a direct issue only at the time of the Reformation. The Lutheran churches, although commonly adopting the Apostles' Creed, still in their original confessions, either pass over in silence the communion of saints or explain it as the Church's "union with Jesus Christ in the one true faith" (Luther's Small Catechism), or as "the congregation of saints and true believers" (Augsburg Confession, ibid., III, 12), carefully excluding, if not the memory, at least the invocation of the saints, because Scripture "propoundeth unto us one Christ, the Mediator, Propitiatory, High-Priest, and Intercessor" (ibid., III, 26). The Reformed churches generally maintain the Lutheran identification of the communion of saints with the body of believers but do not limit its meaning to that body. Calvin (Inst. chret., IV, 1, 3) insists that the phrase of the Creed is more than a definition of the Church; it conveys the meaning of such a fellowship that whatever benefits God bestows upon the believers should mutually communicate to one another. That view is followed in the Heidelberg Catechism, emphasized in the Gallican Confession, wherein communion is made to mean the efforts of believers to mutually strengthen themselves in the fear of God. Zwingli in his articles admits an exchange of prayers between the faithful and hesitates to condemn prayers for the dead, rejecting only the saints' intercession as injurious to Christ. Both the Scotch and Second Helvetic Confessions bring together the Militant and the Triumphant Church, but whereas the former is silent on the signification of the fact, the latter says that they hold communion with each other: "nihilominus habent illae inter sese communionem, vel conjunctionem".

The double and often conflicting influence of Luther and Calvin, with a lingering memory of Catholic orthodoxy, is felt in the Anglican Confessions. On this point the Thirty-nine Articles are decidedly Lutheran, rejecting as they do "the Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints", because they see in it "a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God". On the other hand, the Westminster Confession, while ignoring the Suffering and the Triumphant Church, goes beyond the Calvinistic view and falls little short of the Catholic doctrine with regard to the faithful on earth, who, it says, "being united to one another in love, have communion in each other's gifts and graces". In the United States, the Methodist Articles of Religion, 1784, as well as the Reformed Episcopal Articles of Religion, 1875, follow the teachings of the Thirty-nine Articles, whereas the teaching of the Westminster Confession is adopted in the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, 1688, and in the Confession of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 1829. Protestant theologians, just as Protestant confessions, waver between the Lutheran and the Calvinistic view.

The cause of the perversion by Protestants of the traditional concept of communion of saints is not to be found in the alleged lack of Scriptural and early Christian evidence in favour of that concept; well-informed Protestant writers have long since ceased to press that argument. Nor is there any force in the oft-repeated argument that the Catholic dogma detracts from Christ's mediatorship, for it is plain, as St. Thomas had already shown (Suppl., 72:2, ad 1), that the ministerial mediatorship of the saints does not detract from, but only enhances, the magisterial mediatorship of Christ. Some writers have traced that perversion to the Protestant concept of the Church as an aggregation of souls and a multitude of units bound together by a community of faith and pursuit and by the ties of Christian sympathy, but in no way organized or interdependent as members of the same body. This explanation is defective because the Protestant concept of the Church is a fact parallel to, but in no way causative of, their view of the communion of saints. The true cause must be found elsewhere. As early as 1519, Luther, the better to defend his condemned theses on the papacy, used the clause of the Creed to show that the communion of saints, and not the papacy, was the Church: "non ut aligui somniant, credo ecclesiam esse praelatum . . . sed . . . communionem sanctorum". This was simply playing on the words of the Symbol. At that time Luther still held the traditional communion of saints, little dreaming that he would one day give it up. But he did give it up when he formulated his theory on justification. The substitution of the Protestant motto, "Christ for all and each one for himself". In place of the old axiom of Hugh of St. Victor, "Singula sint omnium et omina singulorum" (each for all and all for each--P. L., CLXXV. 416), is a logical outcome of their concept of justification; not an interior renovation of the soul, nor a veritable regeneration from a common Father, the second Adam, nor yet an incorporation with Christ, the head of the mystical body, but an essentially individualistic act of fiducial faith. In such a theology there is obviously no room for that reciprocal action of the saints, that corporate circulation of spiritual blessings through the members of the same family, that domesticity and saintly citizenship which lies at the very core of the Catholic communion of saints. Justification and the communion of saints go hand in hand. The efforts which are being made towards reviving in Protestantism the old and still cherished dogma of the communion of saints must remain futile unless the true doctrine of justification be also restored.

If this was too much, how about this?

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/8033/10016879am.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


We are Christians, even if we disagree on doctrinal matters. There are more Christians in the world than just those that belong to your little backwoods, snake-kissing, strychnine-drinking church.

It doesnt officially.

It is also forbiden according to your own Catholic Encyclopeadia

But once again that doesnt mean there arent some professed Catholics who practice it - although it may be more popular among other Protestants sects.
Oh, well then its a matter of individual practice. Not the faith as a whole.

I apologize for implying that you do - and congradulate you for being a babe as to badness as a scripture puts it. LOL :D

Goodnight people!
A babe to badness? Night.

There are these b*tches in my class that don't know jack-shit about religions and im just trying to vent my anger here. What do you think: Does Christianity and Catholcism have common grounds? They say NOOOOOOOO!!!

Oh where to begin.

All modern Northern European Christian Sects are directly descended from the Catholic Church. We will, of course, exclude the Orthodox Christian Churches, which developed separately.

1. The Four Gospels were chosen by the early Church and used as the foundation for the Catholic Church.

2. That person on the crucifix that is displayed in all Catholic churches and most Catholic homes is Jesus.

3. When the Protestant Reformation started (when Luther posted his theses) they never said that the Church wasn't Christian, they said they didn't like Church policies (Henry VIII had this same problem but for different reasons.)

4. When nuns take their final vows they become "brides of Christ".

5. You might say all Christian Churches are a variation of the Catholic Church because everything they teach is either directly from Catholic dogma or a direct reaction to Catholic dogma.

6. No, Protestant Christianity and Catholicism don't have common ground. They are the same thing with different trappings.

There are these b*tches in my class that don't know jack-shit about religions and im just trying to vent my anger here. What do you think: Does Christianity and Catholcism have common grounds? They say NOOOOOOOO!!!

Not really. Catholicism brutally oppressed christianity throughout it's history.

And yet it flourished.

Catholicism is the oldest, and original, Christian denomination.

Yeah, a few people have replied to this already, but Catholicism was merely the first heavily institutionalized (and I don't mean the mental kind) incarnation of the Christian Church.

Not really. Catholicism brutally oppressed christianity throughout it's history.

And yet it flourished.

Like Alienware brutally oppressing Microsoft.

Not really. Catholicism brutally oppressed christianity throughout it's history.

And yet it flourished.


Do you just make this shit up as you go along?

Do you just make this shit up as you go along?

Your ignorance would be amusing if we were talking about some work of fiction.

"Supress them, by the sword if need be," the Pope
Look up what the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" did to the Cathars.

If they were Christians - I am not.

Your ignorance would be amusing if we were talking about some work of fiction.

"Supress them, by the sword if need be," the Pope
Look up what the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" did to the Cathars.

If they were Christians - I am not.

:rolleyes:
The Cathars ('Cathar Crusade') were a different sect of Christianity. Persecuting them is no more different from the religious wars that enveloped Europe.

Pope's said a lot of things. Big fucking deal.
Bible's said a lot of things. Ditto.

Bloody hell. Catholicism is christianity. The other christians separated from the Catholic church during the reformation.

Also:

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" - NIV

Historically, Jesus commisioned the original christian church, called the Catholic church, with St Peter as the pope.

And the authority of the Catholic was lost over the next 15 centuries due to problems such as insistance on papal Infallibility, and the excommunication of anyone who dissagreed.

The pope is clearly not infalliable:
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."
Galatians 2:11 (NIV)

during the middle ages kings and high lords appointing bishops. That is when the papal line of took a bad turn.

To put in a logical syligism:

All catholics are Christians. All Christians are not catholics.
AAAAGH! No! NO! NO!!!!!

All Catholics are Christian. Not every Christian is a Catholic.

[(Vx)(Jx > Cx)] & ~[(Vx)(Cx > Cx)]

Catholic = C
Christian = J


Note: "V" has been used in place of the Universal (ie "everything") and ">" has been used in place of Hook, due to me being too lazy to search the character map.

Catholicism had indulgences, which foul-mouthed Martin Luther did not like.

As a Protestant, I'm going to try to take as objective a standpoint on this as I can.

"Catholic" literally translates to "Christian..." I have no idea what all the debate is about.

All today's Christian denominations broke off from the original Roman Catholic church anyhow. All Christianity leads back to Catholicism eventually. It's the stuff in between, some important message, others meaningless dogma, that separates Catholics from the various Protestant groups.

However, Catholicism is NOT, I repeat, NOT the original Christian church. The original Church was much less organized and kinda backwards-assed. That's why St. Paul ended up writing all those letters to Corinth and Thessalonica (sp?) and such places. Catholics do call Peter the first Pope, but if that's the case then the office certainly didn't hold the power it does now. As I see it, the "real" first Pope didn't come along until the Church became more organized and started to bother classifying the clergy, which, IMO is probably one of the least Christian things you can do. Whatever happened to "the last shall be first?" But I digress.

As a few people have said already. All Catholics are Christians. Not all Christians are Catholics.

And the authority of the Catholic was lost over the next 15 centuries due to problems such as insistance on papal Infallibility, and the excommunication of anyone who dissagreed.

The pope is clearly not infalliable:
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."
Galatians 2:11 (NIV)

during the middle ages kings and high lords appointing bishops. That is when the papal line of took a bad turn.
oh dear that would make MUCH more sense if the doctrine of papal infallibility didnt date from the 1800s

and if the rest of christianity had a peaceful history.

who can claim to have straightened it out?

I will probably regret openning my fool mouth on this subject, and I didn't bother to read all ten pages, but I feel I should point something out...

The definition of a "Christian" is a spiritualist who follows the teachings of Christ, whether you agree with that person's interpretation of Christ's teachings or not. Therefore, no matter how much you may disagree with the teachings of the Catholic church and faith, you are a fool to argue that Catholics aren't Christian. It makes as much sense as claiming that squares aren't quadrilaterals.

I am not a Catholic, nor do I conform to anyone else's interpretations of Christ's teachings, that I know of... I am, in fact, a pagan because of my own interpretation of Christ's actions and lessons. To be a bit more precise, I follow druidry because I felt at the time of my conversion, and still feel to this day, that this path more closely follows Jesus' beliefs than most paths that call themselves Christian.

I am not bitter against Christianity as a whole, nor do I hate Catholics in specific or Christians in general. I just happen to believe that many Christians, in and out of the organized religions, are being fooled by faulty dogmas that date back to the Dark Ages, when the churches actively corrupted governments to do their bidding.

Having admitted to my herecy, one of my closest friends is a Catholic, and we have helped each other grow more than I can even describe in the past 6 or 7 years, on a spiritual level. I consider my opinions on the matter unbiased, as I don't fault ignorance or tradition, the two demons that have, in my opinion, twisted far too much for such a grand faith.

Finally, I'd like to remind everyone that Catholicism has almost as many sects as Protestantism. To condemn all Catholics for the faults of some of the more infamous problems the church has had is liken to condemning all Protestants because you don't like the Southern Baptists. There are Catholic sects that are liberal, conservative, and all manners of shades of grey in between.

So yes, Catholics are Christians, whatever your feelings of their worshipping habits, their tenets and traditions, their rituals, or whatever else may upset you about their beliefs. Deal with it.

I will probably regret openning my fool mouth on this subject, and I didn't bother to read all ten pages, but I feel I should point something out...

The definition of a "Christian" is a spiritualist who follows the teachings of Christ, whether you agree with that person's interpretation of Christ's teachings or not. Therefore, no matter how much you may disagree with the teachings of the Catholic church and faith, you are a fool to argue that Catholics aren't Christian. It makes as much sense as claiming that squares aren't quadrilaterals.

I am not a Catholic, nor do I conform to anyone else's interpretations of Christ's teachings, that I know of... I am, in fact, a pagan because of my own interpretation of Christ's actions and lessons. To be a bit more precise, I follow druidry because I felt at the time of my conversion, and still feel to this day, that this path more closely follows Jesus' beliefs than most paths that call themselves Christian.

I am not bitter against Christianity as a whole, nor do I hate Catholics in specific or Christians in general. I just happen to believe that many Christians, in and out of the organized religions, are being fooled by faulty dogmas that date back to the Dark Ages, when the churches actively corrupted governments to do their bidding.

Having admitted to my herecy, one of my closest friends is a Catholic, and we have helped each other grow more than I can even describe in the past 6 or 7 years, on a spiritual level. I consider my opinions on the matter unbiased, as I don't fault ignorance or tradition, the two demons that have, in my opinion, twisted far too much for such a grand faith.

Finally, I'd like to remind everyone that Catholicism has almost as many sects as Protestantism. To condemn all Catholics for the faults of some of the more infamous problems the church has had is liken to condemning all Protestants because you don't like the Southern Baptists. There are Catholic sects that are liberal, conservative, and all manners of shades of grey in between.

So yes, Catholics are Christians, whatever your feelings of their worshipping habits, their tenets and traditions, their rituals, or whatever else may upset you about their beliefs. Deal with it.
well put.

the defining mark of a christian is the worship/following of the teachings of christ. we dont need to AGREE with any particular sect to know that they are christians. that includes catholics, baptists, mormons, christian scientists, jehovas witnesses, branch davidians, and those nutcases who drank poison koolaid in guyana.

Funny you should mention that... My father's birthday coincides on the same day as the Kool-Aid Massacre.

Sorry, I know, completely random...

you all seemed to have resolved the issue that Catholics and Protestants are indeed similar. But these pesky little Mormons keep popping up. Just for kicks and giggles i need to tell you all that Mormons are not a Christian sect.Qualifications were already given but the most important one is the divinity of Jesus Christ over Man. And Mormons have elevated man in giving him the opportunity to meet that divinity. Thus disqualifying them as A Christian sect.

you all seemed to have resolved the issue that Catholics and Protestants are indeed similar. But these pesky little Mormons keep popping up. Just for kicks and giggles i need to tell you all that Mormons are not a Christian sect.Qualifications were already given but the most important one is the divinity of Jesus Christ over Man. And Mormons have elevated man in giving him the opportunity to meet that divinity. Thus disqualifying them as A Christian sect.
noooo vagonesia

the church of jesus christ of latter day saints is a christian denomination

the trouble is that they are HERETICS (for the reasons you outline) in the eyes of all mainline christian sects, including catholics, anglicans most protestants and orthodox sects.

christian heretics are still christians. if god finds their beliefs offensive, he'll sort it out in the hereafter.

noooo vagonesia

the church of jesus christ of latter day saints is a christian denomination

the trouble is that they are HERETICS (for the reasons you outline) in the eyes of all mainline christian sects, including catholics, anglicans most protestants and orthodox sects.

christian heretics are still christians. if god finds their beliefs offensive, he'll sort it out in the hereafter.
Of course, they are heretics only according to mainline Christian sects. This thereby sets up the ultimate "who's right?" question. Of course, neither side can win...so...yeah, not much of a question there.

In terms of Christian theological history however, what is interesting is that modern Christianity would be heretical to the very early Church. In fact, the majority of the early Church were proponents of Gospels or other books which did not make it into the mainline New Testament (such as the recently rediscovered Book of Judas which re-elevates Judas to the highest of the Disiciples, and argues that he alone truly understood Christ and was acting under Christ's guidance when he "betrayed" him to the Romans). Those beliefs would be considered heretical now, but when they first where in existence...well, they were just as valid as the others. (I think that there are currently 7-8 known Gospels, but I could be wrong).

Of course, they are heretics only according to mainline Christian sects. This thereby sets up the ultimate "who's right?" question. Of course, neither side can win...so...yeah, not much of a question there.

In terms of Christian theological history however, what is interesting is that modern Christianity would be heretical to the very early Church. In fact, the majority of the early Church were proponents of Gospels or other books which did not make it into the mainline New Testament (such as the recently rediscovered Book of Judas which re-elevates Judas to the highest of the Disiciples, and argues that he alone truly understood Christ and was acting under Christ's guidance when he "betrayed" him to the Romans). Those beliefs would be considered heretical now, but when they first where in existence...well, they were just as valid as the others. (I think that there are currently 7-8 known Gospels, but I could be wrong).
its hard for me to imagine that god, even if he wanted us to be christians, would reject a believer who had come to christianity through an "unorthodox" route. "oh hes a great guy but, damn, hes a mormon, he has to go to hell". too much jumping through hoops for a loving god, imo

the history of the early church is very interesting. there were so many different sects, so many different schools of thought. just because pauline christianity won out doesnt mean that it was the most CORRECT, it was just the most powerful. in theory, if god is such a strict guy that he would reject a true believer for being a mormon, he might reject ALL modern christians because the "true" sect got wiped out in 350 ad.

the book of judas reminds me of "jesus christ superstar" where judas was portrayed as one of the most important apostles and who had only the groups best interests at heart.

well put.

the defining mark of a christian is the worship/following of the teachings of christ. we dont need to AGREE with any particular sect to know that they are christians. that includes catholics, baptists, mormons, christian scientists, jehovas witnesses, branch davidians, and those nutcases who drank poison koolaid in guyana.

Point of trivia: it was Flavor Aid (http://www.jelsert.com/products_flavoraid.asp), not Kool Aid. ;)

Point of trivia: it was Flavor Aid (http://www.jelsert.com/products_flavoraid.asp), not Kool Aid. ;)
cheap-shit cult leader jim jones didnt even spring for the name brand stuff??

thats wrong on SO many levels!

Your ignorance would be amusing if we were talking about some work of fiction.

"Supress them, by the sword if need be," the Pope
Look up what the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" did to the Cathars.

If they were Christians - I am not.


Your ignorance isn't amusing in any context. I'm fully aware of the Catholic Church's history of repression. He was implying: a) that Catholics aren't Christian (you know, kind of like you did earlier) and b) that they had somehow oppressed his little redneck sect. That's what I was responding to. At any rate, my comments in that post were not directed at you, so why you felt the need to interject is beyond me.

its hard for me to imagine that god, even if he wanted us to be christians, would reject a believer who had come to christianity through an "unorthodox" route. "oh hes a great guy but, damn, hes a mormon, he has to go to hell". too much jumping through hoops for a loving god, imo

the history of the early church is very interesting. there were so many different sects, so many different schools of thought. just because pauline christianity won out doesnt mean that it was the most CORRECT, it was just the most powerful. in theory, if god is such a strict guy that he would reject a true believer for being a mormon, he might reject ALL modern christians because the "true" sect got wiped out in 350 ad.

the book of judas reminds me of "jesus christ superstar" where judas was portrayed as one of the most important apostles and who had only the groups best interests at heart.

You know, that's why it's easiest to just say "If you believe in God, it's alright, no matter which religion you follow." Of course, if I remember correctly, doesn't the Bible say that the only thing that will make you go to Hell is if you reject God even after having seen Him? So, does it really matter which religion we follow on Earth, or even if we follow one at all?

:rolleyes:
The Cathars ('Cathar Crusade') were a different sect of Christianity. Persecuting them is no more different from the religious wars that enveloped Europe.

Pope's said a lot of things. Big fucking deal.
Bible's said a lot of things. Ditto.


DONT YOU GET IT!?

No Institution on this earth has the right to oppress another especially not one professing to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, al la it was NOT loving, peaceful or joyous to execute and massacre an entire city!

Open your Eyes!

What one professes to be and what they actually are, proven by the only standard that Jesus set on the matter - thier actions - can be different!
And in this case it most certainly is.

"Really then, by thier fruits you will know those men."
True Christians do not support, participate or incite any conflicts or wars. Not according to the teachings of Jesus.

Your ignorance isn't amusing in any context. I'm fully aware of the Catholic Church's history of repression. He was implying: a) that Catholics aren't Christian (you know, kind of like you did earlier) and b) that they had somehow oppressed his little redneck sect. That's what I was responding to. At any rate, my comments in that post were not directed at you, so why you felt the need to interject is beyond me.

How can you justify the so called "Holy Roman Catholic Churches" history of violent repression when you know those actions are contrary to the teachings of Christ who said "You will know them by thier works."

Your actions prove what you are - if your actions are not inline with Christ teachings you are not a followers of Christ and cannot call yourself a Christian. No matter what somebody says! Jesus' definition is what you should defer to as a so called Christian.

THINK.

The Rapture is coming. Are you going to be left behind?

Dont know if this is serious, but if it was:

Why is now any more special than the other 1000 years people thought the end of the world was coming? What is so special about now over about 1/2 of Christianity's history where people thought the end was nigh?

Oh... and Catholicism is a branch of Christianity. Any one who says otherwise is deluded, and frankly... well, lets not go there shall we?

Dont know if this is serious, but if it was:

Why is now any more special than the other 1000 years people thought the end of the world was coming? What is so special about now over about 1/2 of Christianity's history where people thought the end was nigh?

It is coming soon. The signs are not yet all there yet.

It is coming soon. The signs are not yet all there yet.

And amusingly enough, people have been saying that for the past 2000 years as well. :rolleyes:

DONT YOU GET IT!?

No Institution on this earth has the right to oppress another especially not one professing to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, al la it was NOT loving, peaceful or joyous to execute and massacre an entire city!
Whre did I say it was?

Open your Eyes!
My eyes are wide open.


What one professes to be and what they actually are, proven by the only standard that Jesus set on the matter - thier actions - can be different!
And in this case it most certainly is.
Hypocrisy. Yeah, I know.

Welcome to the Human Race. We hope you enjoy your stay.


"Really then, by thier fruits you will know those men."
True Christians do not support, participate or incite any conflicts or wars. Not according to the teachings of Jesus.
"True Christians". Man, shut the fuck up.

"We're the chosen ones"
"No, we are"
"No, we are"
"No...we.."
"No! We..."

You're all the same.

You know, that's why it's easiest to just say "If you believe in God, it's alright, no matter which religion you follow." Of course, if I remember correctly, doesn't the Bible say that the only thing that will make you go to Hell is if you reject God even after having seen Him? So, does it really matter which religion we follow on Earth, or even if we follow one at all?
well yes it would be easiest to say that. .

but is it TRUE?

and wouldnt it require that we dont take the bible, theology, doctrine, dogma, whatever all that seriously?

not that im disagreeing. but it doesnt make for a powerful life-controlling religious system now does it.

It is coming soon. The signs are not yet all there yet.

Just as people thought just after Jesus's death until about the 11th and 12th century when they finally realised "Wait... we have been waiting for the end of the world for about 1000 years now... and it still hasnt happened. Do you think maybe it isnt quite nigh yet?".

And the same thing happened everytime people thought the end was nigh. After a while people would realise the end of the world wasnt coming. There isnt anything different today... in fact there is even less reson to think so today than there was in many of the times people though the same in the past.

Just as people thought just after Jesus's death until about the 11th and 12th century when they finally realised "Wait... we have been waiting for the end of the world for about 1000 years now... and it still hasnt happened. Do you think maybe it isnt quite nigh yet?".

And the same thing happened everytime people thought the end was nigh. After a while people would realise the end of the world wasnt coming. There isnt anything different today... in fact there is even less reson to think so today than there was in many of the times people though the same in the past.

The state of Israel is in exisence which draws its people from all over the world. That part of the end times has now been fullfilled.

The state of Israel is in exisence which draws its people from all over the world. That part of the end times has now been fullfilled.

So your an actual believer in this whole end is nigh rubbish?

Ah well, you have a nice time expecting the end of the world while I go about getting on with my life safe in the knowledge that your deluded.

So your an actual believer in this whole end is nigh rubbish?

Ah well, you have a nice time expecting the end of the world while I go about getting on with my life safe in the knowledge that your deluded.

Do not wait to long to Accept Jesus for he will be returning.

Do not wait to long to Accept Jesus for he will be returning.

And that, too, has been claimed for two thousand years.

And that, too, has been claimed for two thousand years.

He will come in all his glory and will make Jerusalem his capitol.

I think we've past the Messiah, unless you're a Hebrew, different beliefs.

I believe Christianity is a generalization of all Christian beliefs, like the Catholic, Protestant (Lutherans, Anglicans[Puritans, Calvinists]), Naustik, etc. Christianity is not only Protestant like some people claims, because when Jesus spread his teachings he was doing so under "Christianity".

He will come in all his glory and will make Jerusalem his capitol.

*See previous post*

He will come in all his glory and will make Jerusalem his capitol.

No, I think Israel will stay Hebrew.

No, I think Israel will stay Hebrew.

For out of Israel will come 144,000 witnesses to the Lord. 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel.

Even the scriptures point to the fact that Jews will come to know Christ as God's Son and will accept him.

Do not wait to long to Accept Jesus for he will be returning.

Hard for Him to return when He hasn't left. He's alive as long as there are Christians.

Hard for Him to return when He hasn't left. He's alive as long as there are Christians.

The Holy Spirit is with us yes but he will return physically to us when the Time is Right.

For out of Israel will come 144,000 witnesses to the Lord. 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel.

Even the scriptures point to the fact that Jews will come to know Christ as God's Son and will accept him.

"Stood the Master Builder on the ground and He saw that the ground was good, and clean. No grasses marred His path, nay, not a whisp if vilest weed did spoil His view.
Let thy furnace be fueled!
Let thy builders be sound!
Let thine foes be vanquished!
And all thine endeavours be a blessing unto thee!"

This clearly disproves your quote.

"Stood the Master Builder on the ground and He saw that the ground was good, and clean. No grasses marred His path, nay, not a whisp if vilest weed did spoil His view.
Let thy furnace be fueled!
Let thy builders be sound!
Let thine foes be vanquished!
And all thine endeavours be a blessing unto thee!"

This clearly disproves your quote.

How?

HHmmmm. I ran into a post on the second page that is quite amusing.


That is why I beleive Catholicism (don't get me started on Mormons) as a religion is not a Christian religion... not saying that all catholics aren't christian just saying Catholicism as a rule isn't.


Anyway...I'm mormon and I'd like to ask how anybody can think that we aren't christians when our church's name is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints. That is the name of our religion NOT mormon. Calling us Mormons is like calling you Bibles.

How?

Magic.

Magic.

:rolleyes:

Catholicism = Christianity since the Nicene Creed up until the reformation, n'est pas?

:rolleyes:

Are you trying to deny the glory of the Builder? Sinner! You will be purged in His flame, for only the rightious will remain.

Its a rectangle != square, square = rectangle situation. If Catholism is Chrisitanity, all Protestants are Christian.

Are you trying to deny the glory of the Builder? Sinner! You will be purged in His flame, for only the rightious will remain.

Oh brother.

Oh brother.

What's wrong? Am I reminding you a bit too much of yourself?

What's wrong? Am I reminding you a bit too much of yourself?

Nope

Don't bother with him, he's just one of those super skeptical guys. A [not for] scientist would say "open your mind" to a Christian person, but what about the other way around?

Nope

I take it you have never read your own posts then?

I take it you have never read your own posts then?

My posts comes from the Word of the Lord.

My posts comes from the Word of the Lord.

And mine come from Zeus. What's the difference?

Catholicism is a form of Christianity but not the other way around. Christians are those who are very spiritual and religious about their beliefs. Catholicism have ways and values that must be followed. Humans made their decision on this one. So Catholics are Christians, though Christians are those who believe in spirituality.

Follow certain values, as in the Commandments? So a sinner (sinned something minor such as looking at porn), can call himself Christian because he believes in God?

And mine come from Zeus. What's the difference?

Zeus is a Greek god whereas the Words I speak come from the one true God.

Anyway...I'm mormon and I'd like to ask how anybody can think that we aren't christians when our church's name is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints. That is the name of our religion NOT mormon. Calling us Mormons is like calling you Bibles.

some people get hung up on the idea that if you dont have the "correct" christian theology/doctrines/dogma that you arent really a christian. the lds church has quite a few extra beliefs (not to mention that whole nother testament of jesus thing) that are unique to it.

Zeus is a Greek god whereas the Words I speak come from the one true God.

Which is the point that others are trying to make. You have no evidence beyond your faith to prove that your "God" is the "one true God" any more than those who follow the ancient Greek gods have of thiers.

Just to clarify a bit the confusions about the history of christianity:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Christian-lineage.png
Took it out of wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity), but it coincides with what I've been told otherwise.

Christianity was (not quite) unified at the Concile of Nicaea, when emperor Constantine wanted to know eventually what it was that he had converted to ;)
After that, the bishop of Rome had some precedence over the other bishops, and the exact definition of that precedence (absolute oder "primus inter pares") led to the great schism. As one can see clearly, Roman Catholicism only exists since about 1054, i.e. not quite 1000 years.

The infallibility of the pope in questions of faith (!) was introduced in 1870. It is restricted to final decisions on matter of faith (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM), which is more or less the same thing as:
When the pope says, a discussion is over, then it's over.

A final interesting fact:
Christian churches today have about 2 billion members, out of which 1.2 billion are Roman Catholic. There are some 600 million Protestants, in about 35'000 :eek: churches.

some people get hung up on the idea that if you dont have the "correct" christian theology/doctrines/dogma that you arent really a christian. the lds church has quite a few extra beliefs (not to mention that whole nother testament of jesus thing) that are unique to it.

Or the notion that we worship Joseph Smith. Many people believe we don't even read the bible.

Or the notion that we worship Joseph Smith. Many people believe we don't even read the bible.
those are people who cant even be bothered to check into a religion. they just go with whatever slander they hear from the pulpit.

Do not wait to long to Accept Jesus for he will be returning.

Yeah, and when he does, asswipes like you will stick him right back up on that cross AGAIN.

You fundies have been symbolically doing it over and over again for almost two millennia, now, and I despise your kind for it. You give all Christianity a bad name.

Jesus comes and points out that the main sects of Juddaism in his day were corrupt and using their position to gain in power and wealth, and were denying God's love from people who deserved it. He tried to teach love and faith, and even most (or all) of his own Disciples failed to grasp that message. Within the bounds of the Gospels that Christians hold most dear, there are hundreds of verbal assaults, made by one disciple against another...each Gospel's namesake is crowned as Jesus' closest disciple, and all the others just couldn't grasp his teachings.

Jesus says that we should love and respect each other, and reserve judgement...but Pauline scriptures say "you will know a man by his fruits", and you fundies choose to take that line and hold it dearer than Christ's own teachings. You judge everyone to be unworthy, if they don't believe exactly as you do.

Your kind quietly or openly promotes and supports the people who protested at the funerals of gay soldiers, and harassed their grieving families. Your kind scream and deride the girls who, already uncertain and unhappy, have made the choice to enter abortion clinics. Your kind screams that you know what is right, because you have the "One True Word", that somehow EVERYONE, including the Catholics who came before you, seem to have missed. You somehow, magically, came up with the "truth" a couple of thousand years after your same "truths" nailed Jesus to a fucking piece of wood.

And this is my own downfall as well... I am a hypocrite, for I judge and despise you and your kind for crucifying Jesus, for putting words in his mouth, and for defiling everything he worked for. My sin is pride, for I know that I am spiritually better than you.

The fact of the matter is that you're not waiting for Jesus to return... You're waiting for Paul, and his messages of hate.

You make Baby Jesus cry.

And for the record, in case anyone missed my first post, I don't hate Christians in general, nor do I hate Catholics. I apologize to anyone who may have found themselves offended by my previous post, but that pretty accurately displays my feelings about fundamentalists...and anyone else who would say to someone else's face that Jesus would deny them for any reason whatsoever.

I am a druid, as my screen-name implies...a pagan. http://druidry.org/ <--Here's a link, for anyone willing to educate themselves. I made this spiritual choice because I felt that their philosophies, their morals, and their ways of life more closely matched Jesus' than many of the organized religions who claim to follow his teachings. I suppose that makes me a Christian druid, in some ways...

It's just that the Bible I follow isn't written by the hands of men, on paper. The words of God that I follow are whispered in the winds, and written on the veins of every leaf...

Again, no offense was intended towards non-fundamentalistic Christians in my previous post.

Thank you.

Yeah, and when he does, asswipes like you will stick him right back up on that cross AGAIN.

Where the heck did tihs come from? I would lay down my life for the Lord Savior. Also when he returns, He will not be crucified for his 1000 year reign will be at hand. That would be a glorious moment.

You fundies have been symbolically doing it over and over again for almost two millennia, now, and I despise your kind for it. You give all Christianity a bad name.

Talk about giving Christianity a bad name. Where is your compassion? Why are you bearing false witness? Why are you dishonoring his name?

Jesus comes and points out that the main sects of Juddaism in his day were corrupt and using their position to gain in power and wealth, and were denying God's love from people who deserved it. He tried to teach love and faith, and even most (or all) of his own Disciples failed to grasp that message. Within the bounds of the Gospels that Christians hold most dear, there are hundreds of verbal assaults, made by one disciple against another...each Gospel's namesake is crowned as Jesus' closest disciple, and all the others just couldn't grasp his teachings.

That is indeed correct. Why do you think there was so much dissension in the Early Church? There was even conflict between Peter and Paul. Even though we are all christians, we are still struggling with who was right when we are missing the simple fact that Jesus is the way to Salvation as Jesus himself stated. All we need is faith in Him and to confess that we are Sinners and ask that our sins be forgiven.

Jesus says that we should love and respect each other, and reserve judgement...but Pauline scriptures say "you will know a man by his fruits", and you fundies choose to take that line and hold it dearer than Christ's own teachings. You judge everyone to be unworthy, if they don't believe exactly as you do.

Now who is judging who? I leave the Judging to the Lord Savior Jesus Christ for he has the authority to judge. You nor I have that authority. No pastor has that authority. That authority lies with the Lord Savior himself.

Your kind quietly or openly promotes and supports the people who protested at the funerals of gay soldiers, and harassed their grieving families.

Now this would be true except one thing! I OPPOSE protests at funerals be they gay or straight nor do I harass grieving families for I know people who have died and have COMFORTED THEM! Do not judge others unless you yourself be judged.

Your kind scream and deride the girls who, already uncertain and unhappy, have made the choice to enter abortion clinics. Your kind screams that you know what is right, because you have the "One True Word", that somehow EVERYONE, including the Catholics who came before you, seem to have missed. You somehow, magically, came up with the "truth" a couple of thousand years after your same "truths" nailed Jesus to a fucking piece of wood.

And yet you are still judging. Interesting. You deride me for supposedly judging people but yet that is not stopping you from judging those who are supposedly judging. I do oppose most abortions but there are times when it is necessary like the health of a mother when it can be verifibly and medically proven. *gasp*

And this is my own downfall as well... I am a hypocrite, for I judge and despise you and your kind for crucifying Jesus, for putting words in his mouth, and for defiling everything he worked for. My sin is pride, for I know that I am spiritually better than you.

Ohhh that is a nasty sin pride is. Nice to know that you admit it. It is very commendable and honorable.

The fact of the matter is that you're not waiting for Jesus to return... You're waiting for Paul, and his messages of hate.

You make Baby Jesus cry.

Do not judge me. I am most definitely waiting for the Lord Savior Jesus Christ to come back in all his glory. I hold His Word close to my heart.

My religion teaches that we should not insult other churches about their religion for everyone has at least a little bit of it right and we should respect them.

Talk about giving Christianity a bad name. Where is your compassion? Why are you bearing false witness? Why are you dishonoring his name?

I wasn't the one implying that he would turn away/condemn the "nonbelievers". I simply pointed out that you were in the wrong for your own lack of compassion. I apologize if you read too far into my message, and thought I was claiming to be right for mine. I just have a hard time finding compassion when you think Jesus will lack the same.

That is indeed correct. Why do you think there was so much dissension in the Early Church? There was even conflict between Peter and Paul. Even though we are all christians, we are still struggling with who was right when we are missing the simple fact that Jesus is the way to Salvation as Jesus himself stated. All we need is faith in Him and to confess that we are Sinners and ask that our sins be forgiven.

Jesus never claimed that. News flash: Study Latin (the language they were speaking), and you will find that there is no word for "the". What's more, he was speaking directly to his disciples, and the word "nemo", which is translated as "noone", was used in Latin to mean, more specifically, "NONE OF YOU".

The line was "I AM light, I AM truth, I AM way, and NONE OF YOU shall get into the Kingdom of Heaven save through me."

Let's put this in context, then, shall we? Jesus told his followers he would be leaving them, and his disciples cried and whined, telling him they didn't know the way. Jesus, patient as he was, got annoyed with them, because he'd been leading and teaching them for the past three years... Everyone praised his clever allegories, his lessons, etc, and noone ever asked him what he meant. Any teacher would assume that this meant that their students understood, and now, at this critical juncture, they admitted they DIDN'T understand.

"I AM light, I AM truth, I AM way". "I AM", or Existence Itself, or the Creator... NOT Jesus himself. "None of you shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven save through me"... In other words, "You guys are already following me, and have been for all this time... You've dedicated your lives and your livelihoods into my movement. You won't get another chance to find another path to I AM."

I had plenty to say about your other comments, but chose not to do it so directly... Briefly, in regards to where this came from, I've gotten sick and tired of comments like the one I originally responded to, which imply that Jesus lacks the compassion to care for people who don't follow the churches that claim to follow him. In regards to judging you, I already admitted to my sin, and note that instead of admitting your own pride, you mock my admission of sin.

And if your comment about my admission wasn't intended as being derisive, and I was, indeed, reading too far into it, then I'll take it as a compliment, but still note that you fail to admit to your own pride.

You are forgetting the words of Jesus which states "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world but to save the world through him." (John 3:16-17 NLT)

He also said "I tell you the truth, unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God."

I can continue if you like but suffice to say that Jesus is the way to salvation for if you do not believe in Jesus, you will not see the kingdom of God.

You are forgetting the words of Jesus which states "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world but to save the world through him." (John 3:16-17 NLT)

He also said "I tell you the truth, unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God."

I can continue if you like but suffice to say that Jesus is the way to salvation for if you do not believe in Jesus, you will not see the kingdom of God.

Here's another one from John's Gospel... "Beloved, let us love, for love is of God. ... For GOD is LOVE, and LOVE is GOD, and ALL WHO ABIDE IN LOVE ABIDE IN GOD, and GOD ABIDES IN THEM."

When put into context, your quotes don't quite say that Jesus is the ONLY way to God. They only say that Jesus is A way to God.

In other words, one need not follow "God" or "Jesus" in name, so long as they abide in love. This means that non-Christians--pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, Taoists, Tibetan Monks, and all the rest--have as much right to reside in Heaven--whatever it may be--as you or anybody else.

Herein lies your pride, your sin... Jesus teaches that God's love is not meant only for the few selected, but for EVERYONE... It was Paul, and the disciples who endorsed him, including Peter, who claimed that God and Heaven were meant only for the followers of Christ. If you believe that Jesus is elitist and a snob, then you are not truly following his teachings, and by your own definition, are not a Christian.

My religion teaches that we should not insult other churches about their religion for everyone has at least a little bit of it right and we should respect them.

You're right, of course. I am in the wrong, and I know I am in the wrong, for having attacked Corneliu.

If Jesus were here right now, he'd probably chide us both, me for starting the fight, and Corneliu for allowing himself to engage in it... I know my sin. I don't know how to fight it, and to be honest, part of me doesn't want to.

Part of me doesn't want to, because even though many wouldn't consider me to be a "Christian" anymore, I still become incensed and enraged when I see statements made like Corneliu made... I do despise fundamentalists and elitists who would twist the teachings of Messiah and Creator to fit their own ends.

Despite the fact that I know I am in the wrong for starting the fight, I cannot and will not back down now...because I know in my heart that he and others like him are just as wrong for making the claims that they do.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but at least I can find some level of peace in knowing that I can and will make a stand for my beliefs, and to defend others who may feel awkward trying to defend themselves.

This is why I started this, despite the fact that I know Jesus himself would frown on my methods.

Here's another one from John's Gospel... "Beloved, let us love, for love is of God. ... For GOD is LOVE, and LOVE is GOD, and ALL WHO ABIDE IN LOVE ABIDE IN GOD, and GOD ABIDES IN THEM."

Actually that would be from one of his letters. 1 John 4:7-8

When put into context, your quotes don't quite say that Jesus is the ONLY way to God. They only say that Jesus is A way to God.

Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is the only way to Salvation Druids. You yourself said the phrase "...through me." Then you tried to put it into context however it did not quite work for it has been written "For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son to die for us, FOR WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH in HIM shall not perish but have everlasting life." In otherwords, you must believe in God's Son in order to achieve salvation. You must recognize that you are a sinner in order to have your sins forgiven.

In other words, one need not follow "God" or "Jesus" in name, so long as they abide in love. This means that non-Christians--pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, Taoists, Tibetan Monks, and all the rest--have as much right to reside in Heaven--whatever it may be--as you or anybody else.

And yet, salvation comes only through God's Son and his forgiveness for his death washed away our sins when we come to accept Him as our personal Lord and savior.

Herein lies your pride, your sin... Jesus teaches that God's love is not meant only for the few selected, but for EVERYONE... It was Paul, and the disciples who endorsed him, including Peter, who claimed that God and Heaven were meant only for the followers of Christ. If you believe that Jesus is elitist and a snob, then you are not truly following his teachings, and by your own definition, are not a Christian.

Do not judge others for if you do, you yourself shall be judged. I believe that God sent his one and only Son to die for us so that we will have everlasting life when our time on this world has ended. You are right that his love is for everyone. That is why he sent his son to die for us so that we, and that means all of us, can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. However, if we do not accept His son as our Lord and Savior, then we shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven and that saddens God for he wants all of us to be with him.

Catholicism is acutally a form of Christanity. Christanity being defined as a followers of Jesus Christ. Now if the question is "is protestantism another from (similar) to Catholicism?) the answer is more complicated. Christanity is both Catholic and protestant. Now the are the same in both believe that Jesus Christ is Lord though the are also different in form and nature. If you want terms further defined check out google.

that is sooo not true.... the christian religion is NOTHING like the catholic. catholics worship Mary, we beleive that Christ alone is to be worshipped. Mary is not holy. The differences are ENDLESS!!!!
Veneration != worship

Even as an athiest I can see that

Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is the only way to Salvation Druids. You yourself said the phrase "...through me." Then you tried to put it into context however it did not quite work for it has been written "For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son to die for us, FOR WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH in HIM shall not perish but have everlasting life." In otherwords, you must believe in God's Son in order to achieve salvation. You must recognize that you are a sinner in order to have your sins forgiven.

And it does NOT say that "WHOSOEVER DOES NOT BELIEVETH IN HIM BY NAME SHALL perish from the earth." Sorry, your argument is invalid, because you fail to prove your point. I refuse to acknowledge this foolishness more until you can provide actual evidence that good non-Christians cannot make it into Heaven, because they don't call out to Jesus by name.

And yet, salvation comes only through God's Son and his forgiveness for his death washed away our sins when we come to accept Him as our personal Lord and savior.

See my above statement.

Do not judge others for if you do, you yourself shall be judged. I believe that God sent his one and only Son to die for us so that we will have everlasting life when our time on this world has ended. You are right that his love is for everyone. That is why he sent his son to die for us so that we, and that means all of us, can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. However, if we do not accept His son as our Lord and Savior, then we shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven and that saddens God for he wants all of us to be with him.

Yet AGAIN, I have admitted to my sin. I find it highly amusing that Christians believe that all people--Christian and non-Christian alike--are sinners, and while you're quite ready to point the finger at my judgementalism, you, yourself, fail to admit your pride and wrongness.

You fail to prove your point, and you fail to disprove mine. All you have is circular logic; arguments intended to run around in circles until your opponents give up in disgust, or are forced to admit that you know more about words on a page than they do.

The problem here is that I no longer believe in the Bible by name. I've become disgusted with the bickering between the disciples. I've become enraged by the number of Christians who cling to anything said in the Old Testament besides the Ten Commandments. The Bible was misused when it was being written; it's being misused today.

Therefore, I don't care how much you may or may not know about the Bible... I know enough about it to know that there are several truths that are repeated throughout the entirety of all of Jesus' teachings: That Love is the most important ideal to follow, regardless of anything else, including calling Jehova or Jesus by name when praying.

Prove me wrong, or don't bother replying.

And it does NOT say that "WHOSOEVER DOES NOT BELIEVETH IN HIM BY NAME SHALL perish from the earth." Sorry, your argument is invalid, because you fail to prove your point.

And yet because a phrase isn't in there, you say I'm wrong? Dude, what are you smoking because I want some. I pointed out to you that you must repent through the Christ savior to get into heaven. That is the long and the short of it. To say that it isn't so because a phrase isn't in there is really stupid.

I refuse to acknowledge this foolishness more until you can provide actual evidence that good non-Christians cannot make it into Heaven, because they don't call out to Jesus by name.

they can't. "Except a man be BORN-AGAIN, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." You cannot enter the Kingdom unless you are baptised with both water and the Holy spirit. that's another Jesus quote. Ironic that I am using the words of Christ and yet you are denying those words while saying you believe in Jesus.

See my above statement.

See mine.

Yet AGAIN, I have admitted to my sin. I find it highly amusing that Christians believe that all people--Christian and non-Christian alike--are sinners, and while you're quite ready to point the finger at my judgementalism, you, yourself, fail to admit your pride and wrongness.

That's because I do so privately. Why should I do so publicly?

You fail to prove your point, and you fail to disprove mine. All you have is circular logic; arguments intended to run around in circles until your opponents give up in disgust, or are forced to admit that you know more about words on a page than they do.

I am using the very words of Jesus Christ. Are you going to deny them?

The problem here is that I no longer believe in the Bible by name. I've become disgusted with the bickering between the disciples. I've become enraged by the number of Christians who cling to anything said in the Old Testament besides the Ten Commandments. The Bible was misused when it was being written; it's being misused today.

By some I will agree.

Therefore, I don't care how much you may or may not know about the Bible... I know enough about it to know that there are several truths that are repeated throughout the entirety of all of Jesus' teachings: That Love is the most important ideal to follow, regardless of anything else, including calling Jehova or Jesus by name when praying.

Prove me wrong, or don't bother replying.

And yet you missed the greatest gift of all. Salvation through the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. I have shown you this and yet you rejected the words of the Lord.

A comment so far forgotten, but important to note, is one that I personaly love to drop onto people.

There was a quote previous about how, "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world but to save the world through him."

However, the person who dropped this quote forgot the overall context and meaning of it. When you take in such elements as the term 'Lamb of God' as one of the Messiah's titles, and remember the annotations to a 'New Covenant', it brings up a new image to light.

The importance of Jesus's life was his death, his sacrifice. He was the sacrificial lamb offered up to YHWH to pay for the sins of all men. Through that sacrifice a new Covenant was made with god, and all sins were wiped clean. Not that of the Jews, or the Christians, because there was no religion based around Jesus at that time. It was for all, belivers and non-belivers, Jews and Gentiles. The Tax Collectors and the Prostitutes, even the rich arrogant leaders of the faith.

By the Covenant struck between Jesus and God, the only things we have to remember is a path of life that Jesus set down in his sermons. Understanding, forgiveness, acceptance. That was the message, and that is the way to god through Jesus.

Now wait, in a few minutes someone's going to quote chapter and verse to say that I'm completely wrong. That only close-minded acceptance of long-dead text, compiled decades after Jesus's death, is the path to God's forgiveness.

To that man, I say... I forgive you. Only god has the right to make a judgement upon your actions and thoughts.

And yet because a phrase isn't in there, you say I'm wrong? Dude, what are you smoking because I want some. I pointed out to you that you must repent through the Christ savior to get into heaven. That is the long and the short of it. To say that it isn't so because a phrase isn't in there is really stupid.

Yet you focus your arguments around words that aren't there. ... "Hello, Mr. Kettle! Aren't we looking shiny and BLACK, today!"

they can't. "Except a man be BORN-AGAIN, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." You cannot enter the Kingdom unless you are baptised with both water and the Holy spirit. that's another Jesus quote. Ironic that I am using the words of Christ and yet you are denying those words while saying you believe in Jesus.

Let's see... Number of times this is said in the Bible: 1. Number of times Jesus says love is most important: God alone knows. Who wrote the Bible: Men. When: Long after Jesus' death. What am I most likely to acknowledge as being true: ...Go on. Amuse me. Guess.

See mine.

Calling me stupid, and then bothering to reply to my "See my above comment"... My, I'm glad I'm dealing with a rational adult, and not some immature child who's overeager to prove a point based on words that aren't actually there...

That's because I do so privately. Why should I do so publicly?

Because you're wallowing in it now.

And yet you missed the greatest gift of all. Salvation through the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. I have shown you this and yet you rejected the words of the Lord.

Now who's judging who, hmm?

I've already proven and admitted to my beliefs. I no longer care for your doctrines. Come up with something better, more concrete, than this "born again" crap. Show me where Jesus said that people would be condemned to Hell for not following him.

Like I said before, don't bother replying unless you're really going to prove your stance. Your argument wouldn't hold water in a real debate.

Hate to say it, but the New Testament clearly states that Christ is THE way to salvation, the only one.

John 14:6
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
(from the New International Version)

I wish that weren't in the Bible, but it is, despite my feeble disagreement.



The title of this thread really confuses me. Of course Catholicism is Christianity. A few hundred years ago, you might have heard the question "Is Protestantism Christianity, if they have broken away from the one true Church?"

But seriously, Catholics believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they believe that Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins, and that he was resurrected. Those are the basic tenets of the Christian faith, and Catholics obviously fulfil them, despite the Mary-veneration which I admit I find to be borderline sacrilege.

Hate to say it, but the New Testament clearly states that Christ is THE way to salvation, the only one.

John 14:6
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
(from the New International Version)

I wish that weren't in the Bible, but it is, despite my feeble disagreement.

Go back a page. I've dealt with that line already. It isn't really in the original texts, because it's impossible to say the word "the" in Latin...

Go back a page. I've dealt with that line already. It isn't really in the original texts, because it's impossible to say the word "the" in Latin...

Continue your unbelief. It isn't my place to judge but my advice would be to repent to the Lord Savior.

A comment so far forgotten, but important to note, is one that I personaly love to drop onto people.

There was a quote previous about how, "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world but to save the world through him."

However, the person who dropped this quote forgot the overall context and meaning of it. When you take in such elements as the term 'Lamb of God' as one of the Messiah's titles, and remember the annotations to a 'New Covenant', it brings up a new image to light.

The importance of Jesus's life was his death, his sacrifice. He was the sacrificial lamb offered up to YHWH to pay for the sins of all men. Through that sacrifice a new Covenant was made with god, and all sins were wiped clean. Not that of the Jews, or the Christians, because there was no religion based around Jesus at that time. It was for all, belivers and non-belivers, Jews and Gentiles. The Tax Collectors and the Prostitutes, even the rich arrogant leaders of the faith.

By the Covenant struck between Jesus and God, the only things we have to remember is a path of life that Jesus set down in his sermons. Understanding, forgiveness, acceptance. That was the message, and that is the way to god through Jesus.

Now wait, in a few minutes someone's going to quote chapter and verse to say that I'm completely wrong. That only close-minded acceptance of long-dead text, compiled decades after Jesus's death, is the path to God's forgiveness.

To that man, I say... I forgive you. Only god has the right to make a judgement upon your actions and thoughts.

heres a different thought to spend the next few minutes with...

in christian theology jesus IS god

god sent HIMSELF to suffer, die and be resurrected

god is HIS OWN sacrifice

god made a new covenant WITH HIMSELF

worshipping god IS worshipping jesus

and if you want to be totally heretical.....all worship of the divine is worship of god, is worship of jesus, is going through god to get to god.

Continue your unbelief. It isn't my place to judge but my advice would be to repent to the Lord Savior.

I'm quite happy with my relationship with Creator and Messiah, thank you.

And no, I don't want your pity or your prayers, either, traitor.

I'm quite happy with my relationship with Creator and Messiah, thank you.

And no, I don't want your pity or your prayers, either, traitor.

At least I know where salvation comes from and they come straight from the words of Jesus himself. The very words you rejected.

heres a different thought to spend the next few minutes with...

in christian theology jesus IS god

god sent HIMSELF to suffer, die and be resurrected

god is HIS OWN sacrifice

god made a new covenant WITH HIMSELF

worshipping god IS worshipping jesus

and if you want to be totally heretical.....all worship of the divine is worship of god, is worship of jesus, is going through god to get to god.

That's just the fundamentalists' belief. It's a newer practice, based on the line "I and my father are one", which was taken completely out of context by fools who decided that it must be what people believed right after Jesus' death. Many of these same fools want to believe that everyone thought and felt the same way around that time, and want to "recapture it", "going back to the 'true' fundamentals of Christianity".

The problem is, there are no "true" fundamentals of Christianity. There's the Pauline creed, the overbearing and rule-happy credo that Catholicism and most of modern Christianity is based on...but there're other old creeds as well, including the Gnostics... Then there're modern creeds like the Mormons of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints...

So it all comes down to depending on who you talk to, their intelligence levels, which sect/herecy they prescribe to, and so on.

There is no "right" or "wrong" way to believe or have faith...despite what certain other individuals would have you think.

*snip*

Ya know....if ya stop attacking other people's beliefs, you would not be getting as much grief as you are now.

At least I know where salvation comes from and they come straight from the words of Jesus himself. The very words you rejected.

Ah, typical fundamentalist behavior. First cry and whine about how you're being oppressed, then act in smugness and self-superiority as you lick your wounds.

The words and teachings you hold highest are those of Paul, not Jesus. I know where my faith lies, I know what I believe, and for the record, even if I were wrong, I would refuse to bow to such callous and overbearing "divinity".

It was people like you who nailed Jesus to the cross in the first place, for being a heretic and pointing out that people had forgotten love in place of dogma. I recall stories from the Bible that detail how angry he became over things like this. I remember his anger at the pharasies (or however you spell it; I can't remember and don't care right now), for misleading the Jewish populace, for denying the love of God to the "unclean" (whose only "sins" were that they had acne or some physical disease), and for abusing their power and authority.

I don't claim to be Jesus, but I do recognize when history repeats itself. You have forgotten the love that Jesus teaches, in place of dogmatic foolishness.

I don't know what god you worship, traitor, but mine is loving and forgiving, and I am more than comfortable with my relationship with both Creator and Messiah.

And if I were wrong and you were right, I would gladly descend into Hell, rather than conform to such a hateful way of thinking. Such is my love for true love, such is my conviction to Creator, and such is the reason for my anger with such elitist and anti-Christ teachings as yours.

That's just the fundamentalists' belief. It's a newer practice, based on the line "I and my father are one", which was taken completely out of context by fools who decided that it must be what people believed right after Jesus' death. Many of these same fools want to believe that everyone thought and felt the same way around that time, and want to "recapture it", "going back to the 'true' fundamentals of Christianity".

The problem is, there are no "true" fundamentals of Christianity. There's the Pauline creed, the overbearing and rule-happy credo that Catholicism and most of modern Christianity is based on...but there're other old creeds as well, including the Gnostics... Then there're modern creeds like the Mormons of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints...

So it all comes down to depending on who you talk to, their intelligence levels, which sect/herecy they prescribe to, and so on.

There is no "right" or "wrong" way to believe or have faith...despite what certain other individuals would have you think.
no its not fundamentalism

if god=jesus. which according to christian belief its true, then ANYONE who believes in god believes in jesus and can get into heaven. god made his new covenant with himself.

does a jew believe in god? yes. so he can get into heaven.

does a moslem believe in god? allah=god so YES he can get into heaven

does a hindu get into heaven? well the hindu gods are the way that hindus understand that which jews/moslems/christians call "god" so they are worshipping god in their own way, so YES they get into heaven.

Ah, typical fundamentalist behavior. First cry and whine about how you're being oppressed, then act in smugness and self-superiority as you lick your wounds.

Ok. First off, i am not a fundamentist. I do not advocate killing people and I do not teach intolerance. Everyone is free to believe what they want but I want as many people to go to heaven as possible. second, you are still attacking me and I advise you to stop it.

The words and teachings you hold highest are those of Paul, not Jesus. I know where my faith lies, I know what I believe, and for the record, even if I were wrong, I would refuse to bow to such callous and overbearing "divinity".

The words in my bible have the words of jesus in Red. The quotes I have used, and you did your best to try and debunk them, were in red. I did use the words of Jesus and not Paul.

It was people like you who nailed Jesus to the cross in the first place, for being a heretic and pointing out that people had forgotten love in place of dogma.

First off, I am not a jew. It was the Jews that crucified him. In the words of Pilate as he told the jews to crucify him "I am innocent of this man's blood." You want to bear false witness against your neighbor, knock yourself out.

I recall stories from the Bible that detail how angry he became over things like this. I remember his anger at the pharasies (or however you spell it; I can't remember and don't care right now), for misleading the Jewish populace, for denying the love of God to the "unclean" (whose only "sins" were that they had acne or some physical disease), and for abusing their power and authority.

For once....I agree with you.

I don't claim to be Jesus, but I do recognize when history repeats itself. You have forgotten the love that Jesus teaches, in place of dogmatic foolishness.

Oh horsecrap. Continue to level false charges. Its ok for I have forgiven you.

I don't know what god you worship, traitor, but mine is loving and forgiving, and I am more than comfortable with my relationship with both Creator and Messiah.

I seem to recall that we worship the same God but then again, I didn't claim to be a pagan either.

And if I were wrong and you were right, I would gladly descend into Hell, rather than conform to such a hateful way of thinking. Such is my love for true love, such is my conviction to Creator, and such is the reason for my anger with such elitist and anti-Christ teachings as yours.

Then show it. Practice what you preach.

no its not fundamentalism

if god=jesus. which according to christian belief its true, then ANYONE who believes in god believes in jesus and can get into heaven. god made his new covenant with himself.

does a jew believe in god? yes. so he can get into heaven.

does a moslem believe in god? allah=god so YES he can get into heaven

does a hindu get into heaven? well the hindu gods are the way that hindus understand that which jews/moslems/christians call "god" so they are worshipping god in their own way, so YES they get into heaven.

That's an interesting way of looking at it... Usually, the form of argument I hear regarding "Jesus = God" are the fundies arguing that because Jesus is God, only Christians can get into Heaven...

While I may not agree with your logic, I agree that non-Christians have as much right to God's love as any Christian. My hat is off to you, and I apologize for my previous remark.

I'll have to think on this some more... Your argument bears a great deal of merit.

no its not fundamentalism

if god=jesus. which according to christian belief its true, then ANYONE who believes in god believes in jesus and can get into heaven. god made his new covenant with himself.

does a jew believe in god? yes. so he can get into heaven.

does a moslem believe in god? allah=god so YES he can get into heaven

does a hindu get into heaven? well the hindu gods are the way that hindus understand that which jews/moslems/christians call "god" so they are worshipping god in their own way, so YES they get into heaven.

The problem is, while you're espousing a Diestic viewpoint, (The concept that god has many aspects or 'Faces', and thus all gods are valid in finding god) you are using an incorrect and often abused concept as the source of your views.

The most important thing about Jesus was not his divinity, but his humanity. Not his oneness with god, but his place among god's people. If it did not work like that, then you would be exactly right. God made a deal with himself, and we don't count in there anywhere.

I recomend you take some time and concider the concept of 'Free Will', the greatest blessing of god, and the source of most Athiestic doctrines. We have the freedom to do whatever we want with ourselves and our time. This is a gift God gave to us all, starting with Adam.

And just because a doctrine has been accepted for years does not mean it's right. The Inquisition was an accepted doctrine for centures, and only OFFICIALY ended a few decades ago.

First off, I am not a jew. It was the Jews that crucified him. In the words of Pilate as he told the jews to crucify him "I am innocent of this man's blood." You want to bear false witness against your neighbor, knock yourself out.

You know, I was willing to actualy refute you line by line for this one, until I saw this point. At which point, I'm decided not to bother. You're a fundementalist and a racist, and this line proves it beyond a doubt.

While it was the Isralies that finaly demanded Jesus's crucifiction, they were ordered too and egged on by the leaders of their faith, the Scribes and the Pharacies. The people who created and enforced the dogmatic doctrine of Jewish Law.

If anyone is to blame for Jesus's sacrifice, it is them, rather than the Jews as a people. They had little choice, because like now, they were given two options. Obey our doctrines, or be forever condemmed by god.

It's interesting to note how you at least recognise Pilate's attempts to force them to recognise who's sin it realy was, but I give you no credit, seeing as you use it as an excuse for your dogmatic racism.

I recomend you watch Mell Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ' and you actualy WATCH the actions of the leaders of the Jewish Faith. You'll note their determination to find fault in those without sin, and their obession with doctrinal precedures, untill they do not get their way.

Perhaps you'll finaly recognise your reflection then... I doubt it. I rather think you'll come out even greater an anti-semite then you are now.

You know, I was willing to actualy refute you line by line for this one, until I saw this point. At which point, I'm decided not to bother. You're a fundementalist and a racist, and this line proves it beyond a doubt.

How the hell am I a racist?

While it was the Isralies that finaly demanded Jesus's crucifiction, they were ordered too and egged on by the leaders of their faith, the Scribes and the Pharacies. The people who created and enforced the dogmatic doctrine of Jewish Law.

Yep you are indeed correct.

If anyone is to blame for Jesus's sacrifice, it is them, rather than the Jews as a people. They had little choice, because like now, they were given two options. Obey our doctrines, or be forever condemmed by god.

And yet they really are not condemned by God for God will continue to give them chances to recognize his Son as the pathway to Salvation.

It's interesting to note how you at least recognise Pilate's attempts to force them to recognise who's sin it realy was, but I give you no credit, seeing as you use it as an excuse for your dogmatic racism.

Again, how am I racist?

I recomend you watch Mell Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ' and you actualy WATCH the actions of the leaders of the Jewish Faith. You'll note their determination to find fault in those without sin, and their obession with doctrinal precedures, untill they do not get their way.

I have yet to seen it but I do want to see it.

Perhaps you'll finaly recognise your reflection then... I doubt it. I rather think you'll come out even greater an anti-semite then you are now.

Funny considering my room-mate next year is a Jew and he and I are the best of friends. My girlfriend's father is of a jewish background so....how am I an anti-semite again?

I have a Catholic friend who knows I am a pagan. He also tells me that while I have my spiritual problems (to which I was strong enough to admit to in public), I am a level-headed and very devout individual who, he has no doubts, that I am close enough in the Creator's esteem that I will be there in Creator's graces at the end.

Knowing the Catholic stance on non-Catholics getting into Heaven, I asked him point-blank once about my chances of achieving that... He told me he had no doubts.

He frowns when I lose my temper and make attacks like I did last night. For what it's worth, I apologize for posting when I was in a bad mood. I came looking for a fight, and I found it. That you were caught up in it was, I will admit, nothing more than bad luck.

I already said I'm in the wrong...but I also admitted to my sin, and pride, as you pointed out, is nasty. Even if I were to back down from my arguments now, as far as this board is concerned, I could not swallow my pride enough to back down in spirit.

So, rather than lie and withdraw, I respond...

I know you're not a Jew, but it was Jews who were blinded by rage that he would dare attack the church that crucified Jesus. Jesus taught that God's love was UNCONDITIONAL... That means that God's love does NOT depend on some dogmatic ritual to find oneself in God's graces. It does NOT depend on the name of one's religion to achieve Heaven.

Blaming "the Jews" for Jesus' death is simply an anti-Semite copout. It wasn't "the Jews"... It was the people who hated Jesus for pointing out that they were following twisted ideals. People who couldn't cope with the possibility that the religious leaders they'd followed all their lives, who said they were "God's Chosen", may be in the wrong.

As for "Jesus' words"...the teachings of Christ weren't written until, at the earliest, 40-50 years after his death. Some of them weren't written until a thousand years after his death. They weren't organized into a formal book until 400 years after his death. How, then, can you prove that your little red words were, in fact, Jesus'?

The fact is, you can't. You can only quote elitist Pauline scriptures, impotent to prove that this elitism is, in fact, love.

This is why I call you a traitor, even if you don't call yourself a fundamentalist. It was the same dogmatic principles that put Jesus on the cross in the first place. That's why I attacked you, and fundamentalism in general. Even if you're not as hate-filled as the other, more mainstream fundies, you still share that elitist attitude, believing that God will cast down everyone who doesn't believe the way you do.

I have only one last argument... God is a loving and kind father, as Christianity represents things. He is infinite in every manner, including throughout time. Our lives are but an insignificant eyeblink in the grand scheme of things. Our actions are limited to what we are capable of. We are, according to Christian theology, CHILDREN to God. What kind and loving father would cut out the tongue, cut off the hands, and maim a child for all eternity for failing to take a bath when they were supposed to?

No matter how much it "saddens" him, such a father would, in any context, be a horrible, terrible father. This is why I refuse to bow to these elitist ideologies.

It doesn't matter that "I gave you the chance to take that bath/baptismal". It only matters that you believe that our father would do that to us for something like this.

*Ahem*

Because you blame the Jews for the crucifiction, and fail to recognise their place as the origin of your faith. (See the Old Testiment)

You can say all you want, but as long as you keep holding yourself aloof with your 'Unique' link to YHWH, you are still an elitist and a racist.

Oh, and as an aside, because although it's been mentioned before, you've ignored it... Those words that your bible says that Jesus said? Were written fourty years after the day, at the earliest. Before that they were part of a verbal history of the faith. Now do yourself a favor before you quote them as an absolute, go play Telephone with a group of kids, or go to an old-folks home and get them to tell you a few stories.

*You can say all you want, but as long as you keep holding yourself aloof with your 'Unique' link to YHWH, you are still an elitist and a racist.

I know of a few people who would disagree with you on that score. All of them are Jewish. :rolleyes:

Oh, and as an aside, because although it's been mentioned before, you've ignored it... Those words that your bible says that Jesus said? Were written fourty years after the day, at the earliest. Before that they were part of a verbal history of the faith. Now do yourself a favor before you quote them as an absolute, go play Telephone with a group of kids, or go to an old-folks home and get them to tell you a few stories.

Continue the attacks. I do not care.

*snip*

I have an Idea Druids. Why don't you and I agree to disagree before you we both wind up flaming eachother more than we already have?

I am willing to let this whole matter drop with you if you are willing.

I have an Idea Druids. Why don't you and I agree to disagree before you we both wind up flaming eachother more than we already have?

I am willing to let this whole matter drop with you if you are willing.

Agreed and accepted. Again, I apologize for posting in a bad mood last night...and I apologize that you happened to be the one I found.

Nothing personal was intended in my attacks... It was the ideologies I was going after, far more than you as a person. That it became a bit of a flamewar between two devouts was not really my intention, so I apologize...

Agreed and accepted. Again, I apologize for posting in a bad mood last night...and I apologize that you happened to be the one I found.

Nothing personal was intended in my attacks... It was the ideologies I was going after, far more than you as a person. That it became a bit of a flamewar between two devouts was not really my intention, so I apologize...

And I apologize to you as well. Hopefully you and I can be friends despite all of this.

The problem is, while you're espousing a Diestic viewpoint, (The concept that god has many aspects or 'Faces', and thus all gods are valid in finding god) you are using an incorrect and often abused concept as the source of your views.

The most important thing about Jesus was not his divinity, but his humanity. Not his oneness with god, but his place among god's people. If it did not work like that, then you would be exactly right. God made a deal with himself, and we don't count in there anywhere.

I recomend you take some time and concider the concept of 'Free Will', the greatest blessing of god, and the source of most Athiestic doctrines. We have the freedom to do whatever we want with ourselves and our time. This is a gift God gave to us all, starting with Adam.

And just because a doctrine has been accepted for years does not mean it's right. The Inquisition was an accepted doctrine for centures, and only OFFICIALY ended a few decades ago.

according to the doctrine of every mainstream christian denomination (excluding mormons and JWs and some smaller sects) jesus was both fully god and fully human. its more mysterious than what i said and what you said

god became man and experienced life fully human. it was not a sham life where he was just pretending to suffer.

but at the same time he WAS god, so that in the end, the covenant was with himself and belief in jesus IS belief in god and viceversa.

it is heretical to suggest that the gods of the hindus are the same as the god of christianity (et al) but its also absurd to suggest that god loved everyone but only revealed himself to a minicule proportion of humanity and damned everyone who didnt believe correctly no matter what amount or quality of exposure they had to "the truth"

Forget it.

My final notes, before I give this up as a lost cause.

I am sorry for the Anti-semite comments, but I don't doubt that you have that as an issue. Not that you conciously think of it, but you do. Why? Because you have spent the past two days trying to ram Jesus down any disenter's throat.

THAT is what I meant about your 'Unique' link to God. Your arrgance based off of faith, and your disconection to the source of your faith. Jesus was a Jew. He taught to Gentiles, and they became a large core of the faith that MEN built around Jesus, but the source of it all was Jewish law. Even irrelivant as it is now, the importance of recognizing that as the base of the faith is somthing key to all Christians.

And I'll say only this more... That you are a Hypocrite. You ignore the valid points of others arguments, and instead attempt to ram one point of doctrine as the core of the faith. And when people state that you need more than 'This one passage says' to base an entire faith around, you blast them, claiming they are attacking you.

You either lie to yourself, or you are a fool. You have no regonition of your own sins, but you are ever so willing to find sin in another. And THAT is reason enough to identify you with the Scribes and the Pharacies, because you resemble them in doctrinal obession, Unwillingness to face your own sins, and dogmatic insistance that all that question you are going to hell without the blessing of your faith.

Recognising your sins means trying to FIX yourself so that you sin less, not turning to god when everything is over and saying 'sorry'.

I'm done with this. You're a lost cause.

*snip*

Apology accept so can we just agree to disagree?

That's an interesting way of looking at it... Usually, the form of argument I hear regarding "Jesus = God" are the fundies arguing that because Jesus is God, only Christians can get into Heaven...

While I may not agree with your logic, I agree that non-Christians have as much right to God's love as any Christian. My hat is off to you, and I apologize for my previous remark.

I'll have to think on this some more... Your argument bears a great deal of merit.

ive never subscribed to the idea that "no one comes to the father except though me" means that you have to believe in jesus to get into heaven. to me it means that jesus fixed the problem and those who get to heaven have jesus to thank for the opportunity.

Calm down, Ghost... It's pretty much as good as over. I was in the wrong for starting this in the first place, and I was also in the wrong for letting it become personal between me and him... The notes aren't going to be very "final" if you say they're final notes, and then follow that statement up with inflammatory posts...

As hypocritical as this makes me to play peacemaker after my own crime, I ask that you, too, let this drop...

It's easy for me to ask someone else to overcome their pride, when I couldn't do the same, myself...but please, prove you're bigger than me.

Both of you...with my apologies, please prove that.

Apology accept so can we just agree to disagree?
I have to do exactly that with my roommate as it is, so fine... I just ask that you think calmly about the points brought up here today. I know I'll be doing the same, at least as to the points I have not already dealt with myself...

I grew up Roman Catholic. I'm now a Heritic, because I see the way that Man screws up the Church, if given enough time. It's not so much a loss of faith, as a disgust in those who abuse the faithfull.

Catholicism existed before any other organized Christian Church. The Catholic Church was basically equal to the Roman Empire, as it was the state religion and was spread with the roman armies. It eventually split, along with the Empire, into Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxed. Martin Luther and Henry the 8th began splinter religions, Lutheranism and The Church of England (which later splinter in several directions including most of the organized Christian religions in America today). Some offshoots of Christianity were blends of paganism and christianity, such as Santeria. We now have evidence that in the first centuries after Christ the Gnostic Church existed but was quickly driven underground and then out of existence by the Catholic Church. It is now experiencing a rennaissance in the 21st century as people begin to question the Catholic Church and the un-cannonized sciptures that were kept by the gnostics and found in the 1940's buried in a tel in Egypt. They are known collectively as the Nag Hammadi Library and can be purchased at any bookstore.

What...the ...fuck...is going in this thread?

ive never subscribed to the idea that "no one comes to the father except though me" means that you have to believe in jesus to get into heaven. to me it means that jesus fixed the problem and those who get to heaven have jesus to thank for the opportunity.

That is, of course, the best way to look at it, IMO. Jesus died for our sins, so wouldn't his death be in vain if we could still go to hell for being good, kind and loving Buddhists, to pick something at random?

Of course, I see the validity of the argument that, should we throw it in Jesus' face and wallow in our own sins without acknowledging them as evil or trying in some small way to overcome them, then we deny Jesus' sacrifice...though I see that being true only to the "deadliest" of sins...those sins which, directly or indirectly, hurt others, spiritually, emotionally, or physically.

Again, I probably am coming off as a hypocrite, based on the behavior I've been showing until very recently, but I am better than I used to be, believe it or not...

<_< I used to quote a little-used line in the Scriptures that claim that one man has as much chance to get into Heaven as he gives to others, to make the claim that all fundies were going to Hell, for their arrogance... I no longer make that claim, nor do I believe it... Not even in the heat of anger. So, hey, I'm getting better, right?

What...the ...fuck...is going in this thread?

A very astute question... All I can say is...sorry.

The main difference is:

Catholicism: You go to Heaven through your actions.
Protestantism: You go to Heaven by the grace of God.

Catholicism existed before any other organized Christian Church.

Actually...the early church existed before the Catholic Church.