thegreekdog wrote: hahaha3hahaha wrote: thegreekdog wrote: hahaha3hahaha wrote:
chang50 wrote: So it's only those 'Christians' who see things differently to you that interpret the Bible (wrongly) because you have been soo blessed to know exactly what it all means,literally and figuratively. I Guess all the legions of theologians who have dedicated their lives to the subject must have mostly been wrong not being lucky enough to be as insightful as you.
This is a provocative comment with no actual basis. If you're trolling, like I presume you are, try harder.
If you're indeed serious, I apologise if that is the impression you have perceived from my comments. I in no way profess to "have all the answers".
Whilst some of the Bible has been contentious and no doubt a tad confusing for some over the correct interpretation/meaning, it generally is pretty straight forward.
For example, when I claim that confessing and being forgiven of sins by a man behind a screen in a booth is not biblical, I can back that up with scriptural evidence, and upon request of evidence that disputes this, get no real response. So by making this claim I'm not professing to be a genius, only to have an apt understanding of general scripture.
To sum up - "The bible doesn't say a man behind a screen can forgive your sins, so it must not be right."
As chang puts it, hahaha ignores 2,000 years of history and theology, nevermind that the Bible is hardly consistent and provides for various "to dos" that I'm relatively certain hahaha doesn't actually do (to be fair, no one else does either). I tend to get these types of anti-Catholic arguments from Christians whose religions are allegedly based only on the Bible. Historically, these religions sprang up mostly for political reasons and the "man behind the screen" quip is an example of this type of thing. A religion based on a literal reading of the Bible cannot possibly exist.
The early Roman church actually persecuted and slaughtered Christians, yet you are saying history should eb the basis of Christianity, not the Holy Scripture pertaining to Christ itself?
When Christ was on earth he made scathing claims against the pharisees of the church, the people who valued tradition and historical law over all else. He declared to them in Mark 7:8-9 “You abandon the commandments of God to follow human traditions.” He added, “You have no trouble rejecting the commandments of God in order to keep your own traditions!".
Secondly, catholicism was the first religion to be forged for political reasons, so I'm not sure if you should be throwing these remarks around about other denominations.
Right, right. Rock, church, and all that. I do not doubt that Catholicism is and has been politically motivated. It's an historic fact. But keep in mind that you started this.
Here are some simple questions for you to answer. If you do not abide by these rules, then you are also violating the tenets of the Bible.
(1) Have you ever worked on a Sunday? If so, were you killed (as required by Exodus)?
(2) Do you have any loans? Do you pay interest? See Leviticus.
(3) Do you do any of the following (as prohibited by Leviticus):
(a) Sow your field with more than one seed;
(b) Wear a cloth garment with two kinds of materials;
(c) Eat flesh with blood;
(d) Round off the hair on your temples;
(e) Have a tatoo;
(4) Have you participated in the stoning of adulterers? See Leviticus
(5) Have you had intercourse with a menstrating woman? If so, were you exiled? See Levicitus
(6) Do you tithe 1/10th of what you make to your religion?
(7) Do you allow non-Christians in your house?
(8) And the last one - do you humble yourself such that you grieve and cry? I kind of get that you don't given your username, so...
Sir, I do believe you are the one who claims to base your religion on tradition, and not the teachings of Christ, therefore wouldn't these laws of tradition for the ancient Israelites apply to yourself firstly, if anyone?
The epistles of Paul are very good at explaining the difference between the curse of the Law and the grace of God, and rather than give my own spin (that people seem to become upset about) I suggest you read it itself in it's pure original form.
BigBallinStalin wrote: hahaha3hahaha wrote:
"What about the Genesis story?" Well, it's meant to be taken figuratively--not literally.
What gives you that impression? I'm interested to here your theory on why creation is figurative and not literal.
I'm not here to defend that argument
I'm genuinely curious to hear your interpretation of creation. Disappointed you won't follow through.
thegreekdog wrote:Perhaps helpful chronology:
- Someone says the pope believes in evolution.
- I support the above in a post (because the pope and the Catholic church is supportive of evolution).
- hahaha3hahaha takes a shot at Catholics.
- I take a shot at hahaha3hahaha's religion.
- Thereafter we (hahaha3hahaha and I) engage in witty repartee.
That is pretty much spot on
Just going back to a previous discussion we were having, also with jonesthecurl
, I have a question.
I will not put any of my own opinion in it, as you two seem to take offense to this ever too frequently.
The Jewish religion will be the first to admit that they are not a Christian
denomination. Why? Because they deny the teaching of Christ that he is God.
Now, my suggestion was that it's difficult for someone to be a Christian, if they believe in evolution, because that is denying the teaching of Christ that he is the creator of the world.
In both cases the controversial matter is rejecting a teaching of Christ. I am wondering why you would classif one group of deniers as Christian, and not the other?