Well, we won't agree on this of course, but I'd just say that the fragmentation of the Protestant church shows that there is no single non-Catholic interpretation of the Bible. So where is the Sola?
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Just to make sure I understand exactly what you mean; here you have limited god to having to make people suffer in order for god to receive glory. So god by your take is not all powerful, because he had no choice but to cause us to suffer so that he could be gloried as the saviour. He couldn't for example be gloried as a saviour by not allowing suffering and getting his glory that way instead?
I think it is your concept of god which is trapped in this logic.
The world has suffering.
An all powerful god could stop that.
A benign god would stop it if he could.
Your god, but not all gods, is in fact falsified by this premise.
Isn't he saying that in order to have love and be able to know what it is you need evil to provide the counter? But, it seems that there is this place called heaven where only good exists. But if you go there how can you know it's good if there is no evil to counter it?
To be clear on this point too.
We now know of several points where different retro viruses have inserted their genetic code into all human DNA. If you believe in evolution then the theory is that at some point in the past the virus has got into the sperm before fertilization. This causes it to be replicated in all its offspring. We humans share with apes these retrovirus markers at the same places in our DNA. This is conclusive proof that we are descended from a common ancestor that shared ancestor being now extinct.
That's a bit of an old myth, actually. The many different protestant denominations agree on the essentials (those that are part of orthodoxy). It's also a diversion to avoid the fact that there are no Biblical grounds for the veneration of Mary and that prayer to the dead is an abomination to the Lord. Saul lost his kingdom over this. There are also no scriptural grounds for the Eucharist. I don't believe Catholics are cannibals but if their view of transubstantiation were correct then they would be and cannibalism is only ever mentioned as a bad thing Biblically; it is never approved. If you point to John 6 where Jesus describes himself as the mana that came dwon from a heaven, a basic understanding of metaphor should suffice, if not then take note of the Jewish grumblers who asked how it was possible to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood. Jesus was talking to them of spiritual things by contrasting his eternal salvation with the bread he fed the 5000 with and even the mana God fed the Jews with in the wilderness following their exile. Just like the Catholic Church, they were unable to understand spiritual things.
Not that you only know good by the existence of evil but that for love to be love it must be freely given. If it's possible to freely give love, then logically it must also be possible to deny it. A departure from the perfection in love God intended is the beginning of sin. Sin doesn't exist in heaven because those that enter into heaven are perfected in God's love, having entered into it freely.
Well Herman, I don't want to get into a debate with you on Catholic apologetics, but I completely disagree with you about the Eucharist - it's one of the things which turned me away from the Anglican community and there are many Bible references which confirm the Catholic position. I must have missed your post when you disclosed your own denomination? Anyway, good luck with your search for the truth. I'm very happy that I've now found it - absolutely no doubt in my mind about that, and I was an Anglican for over 50 years. 
I haven't limited God in any way; you're the one who is limiting God by saying that the freedom of love and suffering cannot exist as part of his sovereign decree. I am just affirming what God has done opposed to what he may or may not do.
The world has suffering. Correct.
An all-powerful God could stop that. Correct.
A benign God would stop it if he could. Ah, now we are dealing in speculation again. You think so but I don't. There is no ability to verify a benign God would stop it. As I've explained before, God maintains a world full of evil and suffering so that evil people can exist out of redemptive mercy and forgiveness. You're limiting an all-powerful God by saying he could never be a redeeming saviour. I am not limiting God to having to be a redeeming saviour. Again, you're the one trying to prove an all-powerful God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering. You're still banging your head against the wall because you don't concede an all-powerful God can have good reasons or morally sufficient reasons, if you prefer, for allowing evil and suffering.
I've sustained an argument throughout this thread that nobody has attempted to refute. The silence is suspicious.
Well Herman, I don't want to get into a debate with you on Catholic apologetics, but I completely disagree with you about the Eucharist - it's one of the things which turned me away from the Anglican community and there are many Bible references which confirm the Catholic position. I must have missed your post when you disclosed your own denomination? Anyway, good luck with your search for the truth. I'm very happy that I've now found it - absolutely no doubt in my mind about that, and I was an Anglican for over 50 years.
Then surely you could provide me with what those are Penna? If you believe, as the Roman Catholic Church does, that I must partake of the Eucharist for my salvation, then why wouldn't you provide me with the scriptures that support the Catholic position? Are you not concerned that I will go to hell? The reason I am engaging with you is so that you might know the truth and turn from falsehood. Is your conviction not the same?
My church is a New Frontiers church. We are charismatic, evangelical.
But the bible is a construct of man. Man is born in sin so is sinful and flawed. Therefore the bible must be flawed.......
Thanks Herman, but I'm quite happy with my faith and know the truth. I'd assumed that you are familiar with the Catholic position as you say you are anti-Catholic, and you wouldn't say that unless you'd researched it and come to your own conclusions. But if you want a clear read which explains our beliefs regarding the Eucharist, try this:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist
Why do you think you know the truth Herman?
I'm genuinely sorry for being so flippant upthread, Herman, but come on! Terry Virgo? New Frontiers? That's not even sham Calvinism, that's just pure tinfoilhattery. I'm glad I didn't waste more time on this, and I feel a little bit better about being such an arse.
Tinfoilhattery, great word.In not stopping the suffering when he can achieve everything on your shopping list without it, which must be possible, he verifies himself malign. As you say he chooses to cause us pain for his own glory. Not speculation your words.
Only if you preclude divine inspiration, which is sort of the whole point.
I am sorry, that defense of the Eucharist doesn't even get off the ground. The author says that the Jews were confounded because they understood Jesus literally and rightly in John 6. Demonstrable nonsense. When the disciples come to Jesus towards the end of John 6 they grumble among themselves concerning Christ's teachings and so he tells them in John 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life;the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." This refutes the entire Catholic premise for Christ's teaching being literal in John 6 because when he talks to his disciples who remain, he does not tell them that the Jews who grumbled and went away were correct, but rebukes his disciples for grumbling in the same manner and it is why none can come to Christ but the Father draw him. Blind and deaf to spiritual things, just like those Jews who did not understand.
What is tinfoilhattery? Because newfrontiers churches believe in the gifts of the Spirit?
God can inspire the book but man still wrote it. Are you familiar with chinese whispers?
Herman has a go at atheists for not knowing scripture but he is going to have difficulty convincing me the Catholic Church doesn't.
Just looked up the so-called charismatic congregations... Glossolalia, eh?
Bleedin' heck
Bleedin' heck
"It is the Spirit who gives life;the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."
What was it Herman said about selectively quoting.
What was it Herman said about selectively quoting.
Sorry Herman, I simply don't understand your interpretation. What you have posted as something which proves your point is clearly refuted in the link I provided, under the section "Their Main Argument".
Anyway, I'm off now, I tend to avoid this thread but I was interested in your posts and your discussion with Waltraute. Oh, and Matthew 16: 18-19.
Anyway, I'm off now, I tend to avoid this thread but I was interested in your posts and your discussion with Waltraute. Oh, and Matthew 16: 18-19.
People who constantly write with sayings make me reach the end of my tether.
You're tinfoilhatters because you're not even a Christian congegration, not even sham Calvinists. You might call yourself Christians, but you are just a cult.
Sorry Herman, I simply don't understand your interpretation. What you have posted as something which proves your point is clearly refuted in the link I provided, under the section "Their Main Argument".
Anyway, I'm off now, I tend to avoid this thread but I was interested in your posts and your discussion with Waltraute. Oh, and Matthew 16: 18-19.
Penna, John 6 follows the feeding of the 5000, as I am sure you know. The reason they followed him was because they had eaten their fill of the loaves, not because they saw a miracle. They were interested in the material gains they could make by following him. Jesus' whole point in this discourse was to demonstrate they did not understand spiritual things because they were not his. He did not call the confounded Jews back to correct them because the reason he said what he said was to confound them. Why? Because their heart was set on the things of the flesh. material gain. His disciples who remained would understand in time that the bread refers to his body that was broken on the cross and his blood refers to the blood that was poured out for us on the cross.
Luke 22:19-21: "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
This explains the speech in John 6, so contextually and cotextually we understand that Christ is not talking of a physical consumption of his flesh or a re-enactment of his salvific death on the cross, indeed Christ cannot be crucified over and over as Paul says in Hebrews 6: 4-6 "For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift,and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt." This rules lout even the possibility of transubstantiation. Hence, communion is a symbolic remembrance. The text does not support the Catholic position.
Matthew 16:18-19 is not affirming that Peter is the new infallible pope of his Church. For one, if that was so, how could Jesus rebuke him in the very following verses? Further to that point, Paul publicly corrects Peter in Galatians 2:11-14? He was also sent to Samaria by other apostles in the book of Acts 8:14. Simply put, Christ never gave Peter any more authority than any of the other apostles.
Again, Penna, I am afraid you've fallen for a deception.
You are in no position to claim what a Christian congregation is since you are a lapsed Catholic (which is not a Christian congregation but the harlot church).
Yes but what you consider 'knowledge' is about as interesting/useful as the knowing the tarot or what it means if Leo is in Uranus. Most people are looking for evidence or logical analysis. They don't need to know detailed astrological lore (or scripture) to call bullshit on the grounds of evidence/logic.
Just looked up the so-called charismatic congregations... Glossolalia, eh?
Bleedin' heck
Be careful. Not all charismatic congregations are the same. Some charismatic churches have built up strange doctrine surrounding speaking in tongues even claiming that it is necessary for Spirit baptism. That is absolutely not the position of the church I attend or any new frontiers churches.
HVR is great.I can't remember the last time a religious poster was so willing (and able) to insult other religions in such a forthright manner.
What? Give your head a wobble.
And don't bring up that 'harlot church' epithet again, it makes me want to repent and rejoin.
ETA: I love this thread!
Yet you take no offence at my church being called a cult that is not even Christian, even though I am a Christian (not a lapsed member of a heretical church) and demonstrate again and again from the scriptures that mine is the Christian position. Praying to Mary and believing that a wafer is the body of Christ and claiming that the act of cannibalism is essential to salvation is apparently less absurd to many of you than the preaching of Christ crucified. Dear oh dear, chaps.
It's no less absurd than believing that Noah's Ark actually happened.
You're very good at this Herman. Almost reminds me of a young Hectic. But then he has no equal.
My sister was mixed up with your lot for a while. She's out now thank God. Personally I don't like to knock anyone's personal journey or belief system and I find it comical at best that anyone in this day and age can be quite so certain about how they arrived there but you go carry on Herman.
Anyway, that is all.
I hope he's not a troll.
I can't remember the last time a religious poster was so willing (and able) to insult other religions in such a forthright manner.
I know Christianity is all one big happy family now, but the reformers viewed the Catholic Church back then as the antichrist
Truuu