9inches:
So how do you distinguish between rational and irrational beliefs? What's the yardstick here?

9inches:
I highlighted the part of your reply to which I was responding. What don't you understand?

budaatum:

I never said I didn't understand. I'd even agree with the video somewhat since it supports a position I agree with if not for the 'belief'. It must have been hard for you to agree I guess, hence your belligerence.

9inches:
Okay then... But does this Catholic interpretation sound like what you've been hearing from most Christians you interact with?

budaatum:

Christians come in all sorts, 9, as do Catholics and lots of many other denominations, so yes, I've heard it before, though I confess it's not the majority belief of Nigerian Christians who seem to believe they are saved by their faith so can sit on their asses despite James trumping Paul with the works he does with his.

9inches:
Am I right to say this particular interpretation made the most sense (most rational) to you?

budaatum:

Do you mean the interpretation that makes works paramount? Then yes.

Christ gave two laws. Love your God and love your neighbour. That word 'love' means work, to me. I'll park the love God for now since same Christ said worry not about the Father in heaven whom one sees not, and the Priest and the Levite who did, he implied they had done wrong.

When I love my neighbour, I have to get out my bed in the morning (work) and go and ensure they are alright (more work). I have to concern myself with the state of my community - are the gutters full and breeding mosquitoes, is that pothole filled so the feeble don't trip, is the noise from my generator keeping people up at night, the person beaten by thieves I must take to the hospital, ensure good government and so on. Besides, God said "work in the garden" to Adam, and not, "just have faith". Even reading the Bible is work!

The doctrine of faith is misapplied, in my opinion. I believe that what is meant is "have faith that your labour will bear fruit". All the evidence I have seen suggests this to be true.

9inches:

You're almost there. Would you now start looking into and paying attention to Catholic teachings/interpretations whenever you are looking for anything Christianity?

budaatum:

Almost where?

When I want to learn about Christianity, I go to the Gospels of Christ and to the Spirit of God that is within because he advised me to do so and not go looking here and there!

9inches:
Is that not what each of the 33,000 denominations do or claim to do - interpreting parts of the bible out of context? You think you can understand it all without being taught?

budaatum:

Taught? Or brainwashed?

It's a book 9. Written in a language I understand. I don't need anyone to interpret it to me as you can very well see. God sent the Holy Spirit to assist so I should not be needing some Pharisaic priest to fill my head with nonsense.

9inches:


@6:29 mins

budaatum:

Taught? Or brainwashed?

It's a book 9. Written in a language I understand. I don't need anyone to interpret it to me as you can very well see. God sent the Holy Spirit to assist so I should not be needing some Pharisaic priest to fill my head with nonsense.

9inches:
Is your own understanding of the bible (with assistance of Holy Spirit) in line or contradict with this?

https://youtu.be/bJjW3LXuHz

budaatum:

Know that I appreciate the time, patience and consideration that you take to respond to me.

You are saying, or rather, what I hear from you is, "Lord, look! buda over there is not one of us yet he heals in your name"! And you fail to heed the parable where it says, "thank god I'm not like buda the tax collector". Remind me what happens to those who heed not these lesson please for they are errors I'd like to refrain from committing.

9, have you ever wondered why there are two creation of humans in Genesis? Do you know why there are four contradicting gospels? Have you wondered why Paul and James disagreed? And what the heck was that Jesus doing disregarding the Catholic Church of his day, the Pharisses and Sadducces, and claiming a direct phoneline to God the Father! Yet, here is you asking me to replace the direct line he linked me into and divert it to some priest in some church! Don't you know the difference between stones and life giving bread?

You see, even in the Bible, the disagreeing is obvious so how much less we humans who read it? And to be honest, it is my opinion that we are better off for the diversity in understanding, and God itself planned it would be so. Or why the heck would one read "so that it could be said that out of Egypt God called his son"?

The criteria to know which understanding is true is clearly given. Can you tell me what that criteria is please, 9?

budaatum:

Absolutely not in line, 9! For it is not that which I eat that is sinful or righteous, but that which comes forth out of me!

9inches:


@bolded; No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is "Lord, look! buda right here is one of us but he's at risk of preaching heresy having rejected Your Church, Your Body.

9inches:
The verse you quoted has nothing to do with the topic addressed in the clip. Try and re-view.

budaatum:

Christ never said any one particular church is his church or body, 9! It is the Pharisees who taught stupidly like that thinking they were the happy chosen few and everyone else was damned! Did Christ not say they will be replaced by stones if they do not do his will? Were the damned Gentiles not included on Christ's 'Church' in the end?

Jesus said “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

Essentially, I don't even have to be a believer not to talk of go to any one particular church. All I have to do is give you, who belongs to the Messiah, a cup of water and my reward is guaranteed. Even you acknowledge this fact by stating "buda is at risk of preaching heresy", despite knowing that buda actually qualifies as a heretic by all definitions.

There is a huge difference between religion and understanding what Christ taught, 9, and there's a difference in people's ability to understand. Christ pointed this out when he said "the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor".

Each receives according to their need and ability to receive, is the point. The poor after all do not need to be cured of ailments that they do not have.

budaatum:

I understand it to be talking about the host being the body of Christ. Is that incorrect? Barron admits Jesus was speaking metaphorically which I agree with, for Jesus did not cut off some of his flesh and give it to his disciples to eat!

Here is what he said in relation to it:

“The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

"God ordains strength out of the mouth of babes and sucklings", see, "the one who rules like the one who serves".

The flesh and blood to me is the Word of God that life has been injected into. And by 'life injected into', I mean not just claiming "Lord! Lord!", but "doing my will". One can eat all the words one wants but if they do not become the flesh and blood in one, one worships in vain, 9.

Please be specific when you ask about videos you post so I know what part you specifically mean.

9inches:


Is that incorrect? Do you disagree with any part of the clip?
Is the Holy Spirit responsible for the contradicting interpretations in Christianity?

9inches:


My point is you stand a risk of preaching heretics by reading and interpreting the bible on your own without guidance from the Church who has the mandate to teach.

budaatum:

I've explained my position on the host.

There was a time when the Church sanctioned slavery, exploitation of women, and sold indulgences - tickets to get into the heaven, and I'm sure the Church at the time would claim it was led by the holy spirit, or by God. But the holy spirit is simply the human mind itself and understanding or misunderstanding is down to the individual.

For many centuries before the Pentateuch was written down it was memorised and passed down verbally from generation to generation. You might understand how different variations and versions could be remembered. Humans then eventually wrote the text down over many years by joining various versions and variations together to make a whole, and continously edited to fit the narrative desired at the time. That's why there are various contradictions in it, and also why it is the "Word of God". Sorting out the so called contradictions is like fertilising the mind. One can't help but grow through the process of trying to understand it.

budaatum:

I do not preach, 9, since I am an atheist! You are asking me about my understanding and I'm telling you about it, I do not expect you to abandon your belief and follow mine! Any understanding I may have is solely for myself.

Also, Jesus gave the mandate to understand and go directly to the Father to every human being when he freed people from the church of his day. It is my opinion that one wastes the body and blood of Christ if one then goes to shackle oneself to a church Christ died to free one from.

And besides, buda is created to behave as described in this post.

9inches:

My question was:
1. Is that incorrect?
2. Do you disagree with any part of the clip?
3. Is the Holy Spirit responsible for the contradicting interpretations in Christianity?

Answer the questions and then you can go ahead with the explanations.

9inches:


When I said "you", I meant anyone with your type of subjectivist interpretation of Christianity and the bible.

Do you realize you are still peddling the already debunked "Christ is against religion" argument? Jesus was against folks teaching the wrong thing. He was a practicing Jew, goes to the synagogue often. Even when he said "destroy this temple", he followed it up with "I will rebuild it in 3 days."

budaatum:

Your questions are too broad! Is what correct? Which part of the clip do you mean? And haven't I explained above what the holy spirit is?

budaatum:
I understand it to be talking about the host being the body of Christ. Is that incorrect?

budaatum:

I understand it to be talking about the host being the body of Christ. Is that incorrect? Barron admits Jesus was speaking metaphorically which I agree with, for Jesus did not cut off some of his flesh and give it to his disciples to eat!

Here is what he said in relation to it:

“The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

"God ordains strength out of the mouth of babes and sucklings", see, "the one who rules like the one who serves".

The flesh and blood to me is the Word of God that life has been injected into. And by 'life injected into', I mean not just claiming "Lord! Lord!", but "doing my will". One can eat all the words one wants but if they do not become the flesh and blood in one, one worships in vain, 9.

Please be specific when you ask about videos you post so I know what part you specifically mean.

budaatum:
Every interpretation of Christianity and the bible is subjective, 9. That's why its understanding has changed over time and why there's so many versions and interpretations. Everyone may think their interpretation is the correct one, but none of them can claim objectivity. Not even the Bible can be claimed to be objective since it is written from a subjective viewpoint.

And no, I am not "peddling the ..... "Christ is against religion" argument" as you assume. I am not against religion myself, in as much as it means regularly attending a place to learn under a teacher who knows better. Or do you not know that religiously going to church every Sunday is what became every day school? What I am against is the idea that one must remain in the same class all through one's life. Surely there must be graduation day when one has learnt enough and abandons ones childish ways?

9inches:
The "school of life" end only when you are dead.

9inches:
So true for protestants, not true for the Catholic church. Protestantism is Subjective, Catholicism is Objective.

budaatum:
That's not a reason to remain in the same class or the same school throughout one's life!

You all claim your version is objective, 9. Even Tatime, a JW, would tell you their interpretation is objective and everyone else's is wrong, but just take your comment above. If you read your Bible and understood it, you'd not be repeating the "Thank you Lord that I am not like those tax collectors over there", error. Just goes to show you treat your sect as if it were a political party, "vote for us and you would enter heaven, vote for those other lot and you are going straight to hell". Not very Christlike in my subjective understanding, but I'm sure you'd claim I err, again.