₦airaland Forum

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.


The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders. "It makes us question whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity," said the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a fellowship of 75 million Protestants in more than 100 countries.

"It makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with the reformed family and other families of the church," the group said in a letter charging that the document took ecumenical dialogue back to the era before the Second Vatican Council.

It was the second time in a week that Benedict has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-1965 meetings that modernized the church. On Saturday, Benedict revived the old Latin Mass — a move cheered by Catholic traditionalists but criticized by more liberal ones as a step backward from Vatican II.

Among the council's key developments were its ecumenical outreach and the development of the New Mass in the vernacular, which essentially replaced the old Latin Mass.

Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers its erroneous interpretation by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Benedict headed before becoming pope, said it was issuing the new document Tuesday because some contemporary theological interpretations of Vatican II's ecumenical intent had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt.

The new document — formulated as five questions and answers — restates key sections of a 2000 text the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which riled Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."

The commentary repeated church teaching that says the Catholic Church "has the fullness of the means of salvation."

"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," said the document released as the pope vacations at a villa in Lorenzago di Cadore, in Italy's Dolomite mountains.

The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles — and therefore their priestly ordinations are not valid, it said

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_re_eu/pope_other_christians;_ylt=AuVRq8tMPbghEtZg53qv0J7MWM0F

Discuss?

Scientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly.
The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria.

Six years ago, males accounted for just 1% of the blue moon population on two islands in the South Pacific.

But by last year, the butterflies had evolved a gene to keep the bacteria in check and male numbers were up to about 40% of the population

More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

Spirit Of Poverty? I could be wrong but wasn't that the spirit that told a rich man to give up all his possessions and mentioned something about needles and camels?

chaz:
What if the Scientist explanation of the beginning of the world was true 'the BIG BANG'.

Just pointing out that the Big Bang theory isn't an explanation for the beginning of the Earth, but for the Universe.

That would mean that there is no God and churches are not real, and the Bible and Quaran are fake! It would mean that there is no Hell or Heaven, no soul! How would human beings behave?

How would humans behave? Hard to say. I suspect it wouldn't be much different from now, except there would be less killing in the name of God in order to secure paradise.

ricadelide:

In my opinion, every Christian is sort of "faking" Christianity.

that is the genesis of your problem and it goes downhill from there. this is the same thing i addressed in my last post.
What evidence do you have for this statement? By what yardstick do you determine if they are faking it or not? How many christians have you met before making sweeping generalizations?
Again, that's just your opinion. I for one am not 'faking' christianity - that would be the most foolish thing; and i know a lot of people on this forum and elsewhere who aren't. However everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
Of course i understand why you have to assume this. if the contrary is true ie they are not 'faking' it, then you'd have to acknowledge that this thing we are talking about is REAL, and there are consequences, the very thing you don't want.

The "evidence" for my claim are somewhat circumstantial. That is not to say, though, that they don't represent reality. I've concluded that every Christian is in a sense "faking" Christianity (in much the same way other religious adherents are responding to the "spirituality" of their respective religions) based on several facts which include: the exactly similar responses in other, often opposing religions; the lack of existence of any Gods and Godmen (in the theological sense); the human mind's ability to formulate delusions and be deluded; the report of former fundamentalists and true believers. Also, the claim is dependent on the number of Christians I've met or studied.

Perhaps I I should have been clearer and less abrupt when I dismissed the Bible. What I meant was it doesn't matter what the Bible says in regards to how people believe and why they believe because, especially in this instance, it is trumped by factors that it couldn't have taken into account or would have discounted anyway.

You don't have a point here; it isn't trumped by any 'factiors it couldn't have taken into account'. What factors? the bible accounts for every single facet of the faith with spot-on detail. Every important issue/factor that was to be addressed was/is addressed; i still marvel at this in my own experience. the bible CANNOT be discounted when discussing christianity - it is no surprise that you didnt get the whole gist of the faith if you think the word that describes the elements and nitty-gritty of the faith is of no importance.

The factors include the the psychology of faith and its ubiquity - it's probably not surprising to note that most human experiences with the so called spiritual, articles of faith, and inane beliefs, tend not to differ significantly, if at all. 

In any case, how does the Bible account for faith? Furthermore, I think you've misunderstood. When I was a Christian I would have made the same assertion you've made: "the bible CANNOT be discounted when discussing christianity". Sure it would have missed the point that I was making, but it would have been a response I would have considered. Basically, it would be wrong to presume that because I now acknowledge that the Bible is irrelevant in a discussion that explores how people, including or especially Christians, believe, that "I didn't get the whole gist of the faith" (not to say that I did, though)

[Quote]

There are instances when quoting the Bible is useful in a discussion; however, I didn't think it useful in that instance.

sorry, i thought we were talking about the christian faith (pardon my sarcasm)[/quote]In a sense, yes, but as part of a larger subject and in relation to the general human mind.

[Quote]

considering that you think the bible is inconsequential as regards christianity, i really can't be surprised. If you just said 'people', i wouldn't be so concerned although i wouldn't agree. But when you add 'christians' then i have to wonder.

Not quite. I think the Bible is inconsequential - in a sense - when it comes to the questions of why people believe, how they believe, and the influences their beliefs wield.

we might not concede many things in this argument, however i don't think its hard for you to concede that you don't have a point here. the bible might be 'inconsequential' to the hindu, it is NOT inconsequential to the christian and to christianity.[/quote]No, you've missed my point again: when it comes to the questions of why people believe, how they believe, and the influences their beliefs wield, the Bible is inconsequential. I haven't said the Bible is inconsequential to a Christian or anything of the sort.

You are wrong for two reasons, the CONTENT of the belief matters (which is addressed by the bible) and the TRUTH of the belief in question also matters (which is addressed by experience).

The primary question isn't what is contained within the religion per se, it's how and why people believe what they believe.

You are making an assumption that the process of faith for different religions and belief systems work the same way or are at best similar, and can be detached from the peculiarities of the faith in question - and  you are wrong there.

I diasgree that I'm wrong. The processes of faith are actually remarkably similar, the feelings - of rapture, closeness to the God(s)/Godess(es)/nature - are generally indistinguishable, and the importance attached to the beliefs are pretty much the same.

First, people do not believe the same things.

I know; that fact is irrelevant when it comes to the shared experience of the adherents of varying religions.

Second, the elements that play into different belief systems aren't the same elements - my own belief system, like i've tried to elucidate here, is not isolated from the object of my belief ie Christ. So its not just about me, its about the PERSON (or being) that i believe in (if that person does indeed exist and pocesses the characteristics he claims to pocess).
No matter how much someone beliefs that if he jumps from a skyscraper he will float, if the premises on which he bases his faith is not true (ie that there is no such thing as gravity) his experience will prove him wrong. its the same with christianity - what we believe in matters and the bible is the one that explains WHAT we should believe in; if someone claims to be a christian and believes something contrary to what the bible teaches, his experience will not validate his belief.
Now you can disagree with the content of the bible ie the existence of God (upon which our premises lie) however, you cannot discountenance the importance and relevance of the bible to obtaining the christian experience.

In response to your assertion that your belief is centered on a being other than yourself, I should point out that most theists share that trait with you. Also, while you have a valid reason to assume that experience would often rid a person of a belief shown wrong, it's not often the case in religions. From the faith of Mormons standing firm despite concrete evidence disproving their faith based belief to firm Christian geocentricists remaining unmoved despite the findings of modern times, we often observe that people are reluctant to give up their faith based beliefs.

Finally, again, I'm not discounting the relevance of the Bible to a Christian; I considered it inconsequential in a matter that it couldn't explain appropriatel, if at all.

And without the need to spell it out, if you do not share the premise (in this case, God's existence) then there is no way you can have the experience - so little wonder you did not find God to be true; you never did give him a benefit of the doubt.

Once again, you're mistaking the sceptic for the one time believer (and vice versa).

[Quote]
First, the beliefs we hold are usually what affect our actions and behaviour; ergo, a new belief, strongly held, can and has brought about significant changes in the way one thinks, behaves - basically significant changes in the nature. There are untold accounts of people who, on embracing a new religion or philosophy - it matters not which, just that they join a new religion, turn their lives around and become better people. The reverse is also true.


Second, they are Christians because of the beliefs they hold. Think, for instance, of how you classify people of other religions and philosophies. A follower of Athena isn't an Athenian believer because, as one follower has claimed, because She touched his life and has made a big change for the better in his disposition, it's because of the beliefs held.

Third, no they aren't lying, they are most likely mistaken.

Finally, not all Christians believe Jesus is God.

i've addressed the first point partly above; the other part of the reply is that the CONTENT of our beliefs differ, we are not referring to the same kind of 'change in nature'. I too, when i used to be a catholic, had a 'change in nature' but i was no where near where i am now.[/quote]I have asked what kind of change in nature you mean. Do you mind elucidating?

Second point i've addressed before using the bible. if you don't agree no wahala.

Then, perhaps, my response still holds.

third issue, your opinion.

Indeed.

Finally, like i've shown many times, you don't know what the term 'christian' means (if you did, you'd see the inherent inconsistency of that statement, 1John 5;10).

How does that change the fact that you don't have to believe Jesus is the same as God to be Christian?

[Quote]
But again, since I hold the scriptures important to christianity, let me justify my statement. Phil. 1:6, 2;13 (just 2 of very many scriptures that teach this)
"For of this I am confident, that He who has begun a good work within you will go on to perfect it in preparation for the day of Jesus Christ."
"for it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to his good pleasure"

I see your point but, again, it isn't the magic touch of a God that makes one a Christian.

Let me help you with phrasing; 'although your bible teaches so, i don't believe.' Shikena. Thats a better way to say it, if you had said that i probably wont budge. It is not your own opinion that detemines what makes one (me) a christian; in fact, your opinion is inconsequential to my faith. I did not believe in you; i beilieve(d) in Jesus.[/quote]I believe I'm operating on more than just my opinion, in this instance.

[Quote]
Um, I don't think I said anyone was/is lying.

ok, you didn't say they are lying, you said they are hypocrites - i wonder which is better. (In case you've forgotten what you said, see 1st quote above)[/quote]Um, no, I didn't say anyone is a hypocrite either.

[Quote][Quote]
The only problem is; are you even interested in the possibility of there being a God, and in meeting him if He is? the answer to that will determine a lot of things.
I'm not not interested in the possibilty of a God - I've just found the idea for and evidence of one lacking. Basically, I don't see a God existing.[/quote]Now, why didnt i ask this question first. Oh well. You've settled the matter in your mind - good. I've settled the matter in my mind and in my spirit as well - IMO, the only place God might not exist is in your mind and the minds of other atheist folks.[/quote]Or not at all. In any case, I wait with bated breath for concrete evidence for the existence of the Christian God.

[Quote]
Do you know what a Messiah means? Do you know why there needs to be a messiah? the term messiah is not just a title, it is also a responsibility. There is a work that the messiah had to accomplish on behalf of every individual. Do you know the work of the Messiah? Have you experienced that work in your life and reaped its benefits?

Yes[/quote]what do you mean 'yes'?

[/quote]Yes to all the questions above.

[quote]NB; Just to put the whole thing in perspective because i probably won't continue the argument and so many words detract from the central issue;
the whole point of the argument was this; what makes one a christian? you said;

Quote
I disagree that it has anything to do with God making anything in the spirit - it's, in my opinion, linked with what beliefs you hold.
AND

Quote
Christians - aren't changed because of the actions of any Gods or Spirits, they are most likely changed by the beliefs they adopt and hold strongly.
I've showed you that the bible teaches the contrary. And i've argued that the bible is the determinant of the christian faith because it defines 'what to believe'. However, since you don't agree that there is a God, you disagree.
I don't have any problem with you disagreeing, but i have a problem with you trying to tell me what being a christian is when it is CLEARLY in contradiction with what the bible teaches.

Actually, I believe my central answer was that a Christian is, basically, a person that believes in Jesus, etc. If you want Biblical support, I will point you in the direction of the famous John 3: 16.

What you've quoted are a step above that and are taken somewhat out of context.

You can stick to your own convictions or lack therof but quit making sweeping statements about christianity especially when you cannot back those claims from the bible - like i said earlier, it is not your own opinion that determines what christianity is or should be. Cheers.

Again, more than my solely my opinion.

davidylan:
as described by muslims? No he does not exist.

How did you come to that conclusion? Also, do you understand, then, that you arguing against the existence of the Muslim God doesn't validate her existence?

What would be your empirical test of God's existence?

None. I don't claim to be able to test for the existence of any God.

I mean do you believe there are other unseen forces that are beyond human comprehension or do you believe humans are the only inhabitants of the solar system?

Oh. I suspect we aren't the only living beings in the Universe (with the countless number of galaxies it's almost obscene to think we're the only living beings in the Universe) and I know there are forces that are currently beyond our comprehension.

k0be:
What does that have to do with the foundation I'm talking about here, you silly iconoclast.
Face the truth, your dear scientific theories haven't been able to explain what brought about our world. christianity tells you all you need to know dear infidel.

Actually, that's not quite true. Look up planetary formation.

[/quote][quote author=k0be link=topic=9356.msg1273416#msg1273416 date=1183938916]You obviously need lessons on reading.  I was thanking shakespeare for helping me understand why an atheist(such as yourself) would devote so much time to proving the inexistence of the almighty  .

Hmm, I guess I either didn't parse it properly or you didn't express that thought as eloquently as you believe you did. So, how did Shakespeare help you understand the mindset of atheists? Also, how much is "so much time"?

Fascinated? No, with God anything's possible.

That's the beauty of fantasy: anything is possible. By the way, I didn't ask: "Are you fascinated that most religious principles scripted in the Bible defy norm?" You did.

You were, that's why you felt the need to disprove most things said in the bible.

Um, no I wasn't fascinated by it. Back to my question, what religious principles defy the norm?

Of course he exists.  Has your science been very capable of proving why the world is the way it is today?
Nobody in their right frame of mind would lay a foundation of trust on their shaky theories.

Prove? Using the strict definition of that word and eschewing dogmatism, science leaves proof to liquor. However, there are ample theories that explain, using evidence, why the world is the way it is. Also, everybody in their right mind lay foundations of trust on science theories and in many cases have had to do so on shaky theories.

davidylan:
It is possible that allah exists, as much as i believe that God exists because He has proven Himself real to me on several occassions i do believe that spirits masquerading as other gods also exist.
Allah exists perhaps not in the fantasy that islam adorns him in.

Should I take that as you don't believe Allah (a God), as described by Muslims, exists?

Just a few questions:
why do you steadfastly believe God does not exist?

I have seen no concrete reason to believe one does.

Or do you believe that there are indeed no superhuman forces that exist? If you do believe such forces exist then what are they? how do you know they exist and for what purpose do they exist?

What do you mean by superhuman forces?

Interesting. Based on his explanation, I can see why Mohammed took number 1 spot. Good list.

davidylan:
you've been singing this tune for over a year, its getting so boring.

Okay, I'll try to find some other pitch with which to sing my song.

Maybe you should quit looking for Him since you don't believe He exists.

Hard to look for someone that isn't there, no? I'm not looking for her.

Its surprising how many people pre-occupy themselves with trying to prove that God doesnt exist when the simplest option open to them is to just LIVE like they truly believes He doesnt exist.

I'm not preoccupied with proving any God doesn't exist (if you had bothered to read the thread you'd have seen that wan't the intention of the thread). However, I'm not averse to discussion the issue of the non-existence of Gods: when I can comment or discuss, I do. Moreover, while the Christian God most likely doesn't exist, it doesn't mean people that believe she does aren't in existence.


P.S. Just out of curiousity, do you believe Allah - with the characteristics claimed for her by most Muslims - exists?

k0be:
I knew KAG would be on this thread. Say cheese Mr. Atheism, it's been a while .

Cheese. What now?

Conscience does make cowards of us all.

Although on occasion it can spur even the faint-hearted to heroics.

Whew, thank you shakespeare, otherwise I wouldn't understand why an atheist would devote so much time to proving the inexistence of a God whose punctilious, unscientific ways obviously intensifies his mind.

Shakespeare was an atheist? Your God's unscientific ways intensifies his mind? I guess that's a new kind of afterlife.

Are you fascinated that most religious principles scripted in the Bible defy norm?

I wasn't fascinated until you mentioned it. What principles defy the norm?

God exists; God is real.

I doubt that.

davidylan:
hmmm much more mumbo jumbo. Confusion at its very worst.

Yes, I can see you're confused - it happens.

davidylan:
there's really no need for the long replies that end up achieving nothing. The fundamental problem here is a confused mind who is having conscience issues.

If you think the discussion is unecessary then feel free to not participate in the thread. Don't poison the well.

If truly you are convinced as an atheist then why do you go to church at all? To assuage your unsettled conscience?

For a short while after becoming an atheist it was, on the one hand, because of parental influence; on the other, I had nothing else doing and a hope I could become a Christain again. This days I only go to church when I've been invited.

Why claim to be an atheist christian, why not atheist muslim or atheist hindu? You don't believe in God and yet you struggle to fit your existence with that of the run of the mill christian.

Look, instead of being a jerk, you could at the very least try reading the thread first. If I had being a Muslim or Hindu before becoming an atheist I would have used those.

You believe there is no God and yet you read the bible?

I didn't know there was an embargo on reading religious literature. Good thing I haven't started on the Dianetics yet - I'd have had no choice but to believe in Xenu first.

Why wasting your time when you could just as well be reading the quran or shakespeare?

I have read a lot of Shakespeare's plays (some more than once) and I've read parts of the Quran. Banquo lives!

That way you wont spend wasted hours mulling over whether you are a christian or an atheist.

For you and other people: [size=16pt]PLEASE READ THE THREAD FIRST[/size]. Thanks.

[/quote][quote author=davidylan link=topic=9356.msg1271501#msg1271501 date=1183841105]err madam where is it said that being a christian is a profession that automatically prevents you from speaking about islam? Quoting the quran does not make me stop reading the bible. Maybe you should stick to the topic and not using the opportunity to nitpick simply because you have personal issues please.

Interesting. Hypocrisy

ricadelide:
i agree and disagree with you here. I was actually going to go into that but didnt want too lenghty a writeup. However one correction: it's the fruit of the spirit, not the fruit[b]s[/b] (Gal. 5:22 "But the fruit of the Spirit is" it is singular and it also says IS, and believe me, its not a grammatical error. I wont really go into the meaning of that passage though.

Fair enough. Probably due to the influence of grammar and Matthew's "by their fruits you shall know them", I'd always read that verse as "fruits".

That said, if you look at those qualities listed, you'd see they refer to the character (or nature) of a person. True, they can be reflected in actions and the bible actually teaches that they should result in actions. But the issue still is, good actions can stem from bad motives or from people with bad characters. A very ready example is giving; just look around at the many 'donors' we have all around. With many the motive is selfishness ie pride, vanity etc - which is 'normal' with men, but frowned at by God. And that was what Jesus tried to address in Matt. 6. You can try to read it. The emphasis in biblical christianity is on a changed heart and nature, rather than on what one does.

On the other hand people who give anonymously and without rancour do, to some extent, display the right qualities; however, I should add (and I know that isn't what you were implying) that it goes a lot further than simply giving. The characteristics go a lot further than that and should be taken as a whole.

And, a lot of people can and do 'fake' christianity; its all about how you appear before men. However, God is not mocked (Gal.6;7).

In my opinion, every Christian is sort of "faking" Christianity.

Considering we are talking about christianity, and considering that the bible is held by christians as the reference book and final authority on issues regarding their faith, i am not surprised that we have to be arguing. If 'it matters not what the bible teaches' when talking about christianity, then when will it matter?

Perhaps I I should have been clearer and less abrupt when I dismissed the Bible. What I meant was it doesn't matter what the Bible says in regards to how people believe and why they believe because, especially in this instance, it is trumped by factors that it couldn't have taken into account or would have discounted anyway.

And what phenomena do you refer to?

Belief and the influence of it on humans thereof.

and from where do the so-called objects of study derive their convictions?

Most often they have different beliefs and different sources of inspirations.

what is the yardstick for the lifestyle practiced by those subjects (or objects) which you observed?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could perhaps elucidate?

If we were talking about some other issue, it might not matter much. that is why i'm not likely to quote a bible verse with nferyn, but considering that we are discussing christianity, i'm surprised.

There are instances when quoting the Bible is useful in a discussion; however, I didn't think it useful in that instance.

considering that you think the bible is inconsequential as regards christianity, i really can't be surprised. If you just said 'people', i wouldn't be so concerned although i wouldn't agree. But when you add 'christians' then i have to wonder.

Not quite. I think the Bibel is inconsequential - in a sense - when it comes to the questions of why people believe, how they believe, and the influences their beliefs wield.

what is your basis for determining what experiences christians have or go through? Do you have biblical arguements to contradict what i said? Oh, i forgot. The bible isn't important.

Exactly.

How does the belief one 'holds strongly' produce a changed nature? If 'christians' aren't changed by 'any Gods or Spirits' then what makes them christian? why do we still call them christians? Are they lying when they say God is working in and with them? Are they lying if they say they have a relationship with God? If they are, why do we still call them 'christians'? Remember that they also believe that the christ (we name them after) is God.

First, the beliefs we hold are usually what affect our actions and behaviour; ergo, a new belief, strongly held, can and has brought about significant changes in the way one thinks, behaves - basically significant changes in the nature. There are untold accounts of people who, on embracing a new religion or philosophy - it matters not which, just that they join a new religion, turn their lives around and become better people. The reverse is also true.


Second, they are Christians because of the beliefs they hold. Think, for instance, of how you classify people of other religions and philosophies. A follower of Athena isn't an Athenian believer because, as one follower has claimed, because She touched his life and has made a big change for the better in his disposition, it's because of the beliefs held.

Third, no they aren't lying, they are most likely mistaken.

Finally, not all Christians believe Jesus is God.

But again, since I hold the scriptures important to christianity, let me justify my statement. Phil. 1:6, 2;13 (just 2 of very many scriptures that teach this)
"For of this I am confident, that He who has begun a good work within you will go on to perfect it in preparation for the day of Jesus Christ."
"for it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to his good pleasure."

I see your point but, again, it isn't the magic touch of a God that makes one a Christian.

My point in all these stuff is just to show you one thing - you may have attended church, done all the activities, etc. but that didnt make you a christian, you have not met the christian God and that is why you can't understand all i've been trying to say. Now, i'm not trying to sound negative, i'm only trying to show you that in all your 'church' days, you never did encounter the reality within the church, or what 'christianity' is all about. That is not exclusive, in fact, its the experience of every true christian  you'd see here (I was in that position for up to 10 years for some others it may be more or fewer); the difference is only that they realized their need - they wanted to really know this God and not just bear the name 'christian' and they did something about it. That became their turning point. There has to be a turning point for one to become a christian.

Oh, now I know I didn't experience God, etc. That is not to say, however, that I didn't really believe, at the time, that I had met God, I had been in her prescence and had something of a relationship with her. Oh yes, at one point, irregardless of what the proclaimers of true Christianity may claim, I was convinced I was experiencing what True Christians experience(d). And, coincidentally, I had that turning point experience you mentioned.

Being found in church or growing up therein and doing all the activities, or even having a good nature does not make you a christian.

I know. Although, to just briefly tie this part to the OP, it would seem that that since those characteristics are often associated with Christianity that someone hoping to acquire labels that decribe his/her stances would just use the "Christian" moniker.

In your case as with many others, you've concluded that they must be lying just because you haven't touched the substance they are talking about. However, we are not lying.

Um, I don't think I said anyone was/is lying.

Its just like it is with normal friend-making; there will be a time when you didnt know the one and there will be a time when you become friends. Its possible you've been aware of the person all along, but because you hadn't met you weren't friends, its the same way with God. The only problem is; are you even interested in the possibility of there being a God, and in meeting him if He is? the answer to that will determine a lot of things.

I'm not not interested in the possibilty of a God - I've just found the idea for and evidence of one lacking. Basically, I don't see a God existing.

LOL, then evil the devil and his hordes will have been christians.
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (James 2;19)
Add this;
"Ha! Jesus the Nazarene, what have you to do with us? I know who you are--God's Holy One!" (Luke 4;34)

Even demons (i assume you also don't believe in that, but just to make a point please indulge me) believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
Your statement is not biblically correct and is flawed in many respects. Let me explain further, i'm not saying christians don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. They do, but its much more complex than that.

While I said Christains believe IN Jesus as the saviour, you're right. I would add that Christians are those that accept Jesus as their saviour.

First, the word used for 'believe' in the greek is much more broad and deeper than the english word which just connotes a mere mental accent. For an illustration consult the amplified bible and you'd see the difference. So ab initio, you have to understand what biblical faith means. I've addressed this issue many times on another thread.
Second, there is a difference between believing that Jesus is the Messiah and believing that Jesus is YOUR messiah.

The latter has its implications, which is in the gospel message and which i can go into later. It is a personal message and has personal consequences. As regards this point, one has to understand what messiah means, and why one needs one. Someone in the latter case has already understood that he needs a messiah, and that understanding places a demand on that person to either accept and act on the said christ's finished work or reject it.

I did say they believe in Jesus, etc.

Do you know what a Messiah means? Do you know why there needs to be a messiah? the term messiah is not just a title, it is also a responsibility. There is a work that the messiah had to accomplish on behalf of every individual. Do you know the work of the Messiah? Have you experienced that work in your life and reaped its benefits?

Yes.

ricadelide:
i basically said that in my next statement.

The part I quoted began with: "i still maintain however that a seal's bark is distinct and different from a dog's bark". I felt compelled to point out that it wasn't quite right.

It only illustrates what my arguement was; pocessing certain shared characteristics does not confer on one a shared identity. the identity does not lie in the characteristic. That some seals will sound like some dogs doesn't make them dogs or vice versa. That somone goes to church or does good things etc does not confer on them the christian identity.

Indeed. My point - especially at the time the idea of a label came up - was akin to to using the Christian moniker as a descriptor in very much the same way barking with respect to dogs is used.

Of course, like most analogies, that's not a very accurate analogy like we concluded (because the latter talks about activities rather than attributes amongst other flaws) but it helps to illustrate the point. The real issues still remain; what makes one a christian, what is the definition of a christian? what is the identifying mark of a christian? perhaps you could provide answers to those questions.

Simply put: believing in and accepting Jesus as a saviour

i guess you should read my last post in the previous page. remember it was an analogy to illustrate a point.I and nferyn reached a point of mutual understanding. Do read our rejoinders.

I have; I don't see how it affects the point that the concept of barks tie in to the discussion abstractly.

Kuns:
How come everyone except black people know the bible is a fabrication of the truth.

Everyone (people of other races) knows this, except the negroids , If we go to Psalms 46 we can clearly see where William Shakespeare (William Tynsdale) left his make.

Would it be asking too much of you to ask that you provide evidence for the idea that William Shakespeare was Tynsdale?

MP007:
u can't be ann atheist and stil claim to be a christian, nothing annoys me more than pure human stupidity,

That's wonderful; it must be hard living with yourself, then. Try reading the thread first (maybe?)

English1:
You are not alone in this. I've known people who go to church and belong to a religion even though they have no belief in God. They do it as they like belonging to that community and want their children to go to the church school etc. I don't think there is a word for it. You are following the lifestyle not the religion.

Hypocrite perhaps?
Social Christian?
Lifestyle Christian?

That's a good point. I think at the time I was trying to identify with those Christians who live(d) or tried to live the Christian lifestyle, and not the fundamentalists.

- have you looked at the unitarian church? That sounds like it would suit you as it is a church, yet it accepts people of all sorts of faiths, and even those without faiths, who are interested in the issues of how to live a good life etc.

Yep, I've heard good things about it. I might visit one out of curiousity someday.

ricadelide:

I disagree in part. While, I agree Christianity isn't just about actions - even though I've heard it's "by their fruits you shall know them" - I disagree that it has anything to do with God making anything in the spirit - it's, in my opinion, linked with what beliefs you hold.

First, 'fruit' in a biblical sense isn't necessarily about actions but about the person ie the nature. That is a common misconception; the reference is in Matt. 7;15-20. verse 15 buttresses this;
"they come to you in sheep's clothing (actions, outward appearance) but inwardly (nature, heart) they are ferocious wolves"
that implies that they would definitely act right and appear outwardly right; but the only way to know them is by discernment (which is a spiritual attribute) as that is the only way of knowing the nature of a person. That was what Jesus was trying to address in that verse. I can go into more detail as regards the use of the word fruit in the biblical context. However, you've already stated that christianity is not necessarily about actions.

From what I've observed, the much mentioned fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, long-suffering, etc) are almost impossible to fake and have to be, at the very least, a small part of the person's nature and can't help but be shown in the actions of the person possessing those characteristics. Yes, Christianity isn't necessarily about actions, but the actions - which are often difficult fake - can still be an indicator.

As regards the second part of your statement, i totally disagree. that is your own opinion on the subject and not what the bible teaches.

It matters noot what the Bible teaches; what matters is what the study of phenomenons of that kind reveal.

that is the whole essence of the gospel. a very detailed account of the work of God in a believer had been described (prophesised) much earlier in the book of Ezeikel 36;25-27.
“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances."
three major issues are addressed in that scripture, the sprinkling with clean water (the word of God - Eph. 5;26), the rebirth and renewal of the believer's spirit (Titus. 3;5), and the deposit of the Spirit of God into the believer's spirit (2Cor.5;5).
we are recreated in our spirits by God at the point of becoming a christian and if that change of nature (ie removal of a heart of stone to be replaced by a heart of flesh) hasn't been or isn't done, one cannot be a christian (in the biblical sense of the word). That is why 2Cor.5;17 (Darby) says;
"So if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new"
Furthermore, this is what Jesus tried to address when speaking to Nicodemus in John 3;5-6;
"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
the work of God in our spirits is what constitutes the new birth or the new creation. that is the whole basis of the gospel and it is consistent with and built upon throughout the scriptures. i could mention many other verses to illustrate it.

Those are all beliefs that have little foundation in reality. People - Christians - aren't changed because of the actions of any Gods or Spirits, they are most likely changed by the beliefs they adopt and hold strongly.

Thirdly, as regards the christian life being the result of the beliefs one holds, again the point has to be addressed as to what faith is. I've already done that elsewhere. The vehicle of faith is the means by which the work of God is carried out - they are not mutually exclusive. The beliefs a christian holds about petty issues is inconsequential (Romans 14) as long as the principle of faith is not violated (verse 23).

I was reffering to the belief in Jesus as the messiah - that is the belief that makes one a Christian.

I don't agree with this term 'agnostic christian'. Methinks it is self-contradictory. the reason one is a christian is because he is sure of God and what he has done (and is doing) in his life. (Heb. 11;6). That is not to say that true christians do not doubt God sometimes; however what is to be clarified is that sometimes they do not feel his presence, but they never doubt his person. The case of Job is a clearcut case. And that again brings up the issue - if you are not sure of God, you aren't a christian (in the biblical sense) John 10;14;
"“I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,"
If one doesn't know him, then one is not of his. And you can't know someone in the biblical sense without being sure of the person.

Fair enough.

I'd say you are confused as to what being a christian is and how to become one.
Cheers.

Not really.

ricadelide:

Actually, imitation can bring about a change in nature.

i disagree; at least in the case in reference.

Why? Imitation bringing about a change in nature is a well known occurence.

good for you, although i doubt it was the kind of change in nature i'm referring to.

While, I most likely wouldn't want the kind of change in nature you were referencing, what kind of change in nature did you mean?

again, i made a statement in reference to what nferyn said; the two statements aren't linked. ie i'm not saying a seal is imitating a dog. Sorry for the confusion.

Oh, okay.

i still maintain however that a seal's bark is distinct and different from a dog's bark. like you said, one can assume we call the sounds they make barks just because we see it being similar to that of a dog, but i don't believe one would misplace one for the other.

That's not quite right: the bark of seals are similar and can be mistaken for the bark of some dog breeds. Remember, not all dogs bark alike and certainly not all breeds sound alke either.

the bark varies depending on the size, age, etc of the dog. But that doesn't negate what i said; that's why i qualified my statement by saying 'a dog's bark'. i'm trying to drive home a more important point.

A dog's bark?

Anyways, these are trivialities.

I think they tie in well - abstractly, though - to the discussion.

MP007:
Some churches in the state of california now have gay pastors, aint judging nobody, just want to know if u can attend those kind of churches

Yes.

Kuns:
Hey, you lost me , there.

So he prayed to himself, died for himself , and changed a set of laws and circumstances that he ordained for himself. emmm!

Pretty much. Schizophrenia doesn't begin to cover it.

Aproko:
what is strange to me is how religion came into existence and why it has become what it is today!

I guess it does border on strange.

stimulus:
It all depends on who is defining what. Christianity is both a relationship and a religion depending on the context one uses either terms. What is central to this discussion is that Christianity is a different kind of relationship from what is usually offered in other faiths.

Like, for example, Sikhism.

lafile:
@KAG
Do you call an animal a Dog because it barks or does the animal bark because its a Dog?

Neither. As Nferyn pointed out, barking does not a dog make, and some dogs do not bark.

ricadelide:
methinks his point was; the observed characteristic is a product of the nature of the object. Imitation does not bring about a change in nature.

Actually, imitation can bring about a change in nature.

True christianity is about a change in nature.

And strangely enough, my nature was changed: I became, so to speak, a new person. Would that count?

A seal's bark is different from a dog's bark.
when you hear a dog's bark, its either a real dog is barking or someone is imitating it; the problem (with christianity) usually lies in the latter.

I disagree. The type of bark a dog makes can often depend on its breed and can vary wildly - with that in mind it would be wrong to think a seal's bark is necessarily different from the bark of dogs. Furthermore, seals aren't imitating the bark of dogs, they are making their own sounds which just happens to be similar to that of a dog and because dogs are the more familiar animals with barks to humans we make the comparism and labelling in respect to dogs.

Aproko:
okay KAG, maybe UNSURE is the right word.

but I still think CONFUSED is also appropriate, because you go to church, perhaps you even enjoy sunday services _{or whatever day of the week they hold} and then somehow you feel the pastor in front of you is not saying everything, something in his gospel just doesnt strike any chord in you, perhaps this is because there is no God anywhere. the bible seems contradictory, yet so many seem to have found peace and happiness in these words of the bible _{perhaps they are pretending or just plain lazy?} so you are confused or perhaps unsure as to how something that doesnt seem to make any sense can make so much sense!!!! _{at least to some people}

I'm not sure I follow (now I'm confused). In any case, at the time I was trying to find a label that could wholly describe my stance and my activities - I din't think just describing myself as an atheist would be adequate.

on the fence with amicable people on both sides?? hey in every 12, there must be a judas, so how amicable do you think the multitude of people on both sides can be?

Amicable enough to prevent the Judas in the dozen from rearing his/her head.

stimulus:
Hi KAG,

I'd seen that in a forum as well: http://www.cool-teens.com/archive/index.php/t-15410.html

In anycase, when I tried counting as recommended, it didn't seem to fit the 46th word counting from the end. Perhaps I'm missing something; but when a few of my pals asked me to lay them out, I found that the word SPEAR was the 47th word. This was how it worked out:

1 Selah.

You won't believe it, but my pals insisted I still got it wrong

I think you're suppose to ignore "selah"

- even though I tried to point out that William Shakespeare was not the translator of the King James Bible!

LoL, that would be asking too much.

stimulus:
The thread originator sef is nowhere to be found. Wey the backwardly-spelt "Shakespeare" for Bible now?

Owing to the fact I ressurected the thread, I decided to google for it. Here's what I found:


IF YOU HAVE A KING JAMES VERSION, (if not it won't work)
Look up Psalms 46. Count until you get to the 46th word, which is SHAKE. Now count 46 words from the end, and it is SPEAR.


William Shakespeare was 46 years old at the time he translated this Bible, which mains logical sense, seeing as it is in the 46th Psalm, the 46th words from top and bottom.

Source: some forum

Just for chits and giggles.

Kuns:
If Jesus is God then who was he praying too , himself.

It's only fair that he prayed to himself, afterall he did send himself to die (temporarily) as a sacrifice to himself to change a set of circumstances and laws that he ordained himself.

Aproko:
in my own understaning, the first time the word 'christain' was mentioned in the bible was in reference to the jesus disciples. this was because their behaviour was similar to that of jesus christ.

so ideally, it should not be a religion in the sense of the word, but a way of life modelled after that of jesus christ.

That means, using your line of reasoning, that Zorostrianism, Manichaeism and Buddhism aren't religions either. Strange.

thesilent1:
well, we all follow the vatican's stand point on anything, so its got to be true.

The Vatican astronomer did make a valid point this time.

thesilent1:
is that not the defence for your views as well?

What views?

ajadrage:
There is as much proof, even more as to the existence of Jesus Christ than Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar. Secular history proves this aside form the history which modern christianity provides

Don't be silly. While you could just about argue (erronously) that history stretching back to Julius Caeser isn't that reliable, it would be foolish to claim that there's little to no strong historical evidence for the existence of Hitler and Napoleon - I'm hoping you realise that many still living people witnessed Hitler and his attrocities.

Ndipe:
I mean, do you really consider it a coincidence that Jesus Christ fulfilled all these prophecies, pertaining to the Messiah? I don't believe in coincidences. things happen for a reason!

I consider it a fraud for the most part.

lafile:
Mr KAG
There's a fundamental flaw in your thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe being a Christian is about the things you do. Go to church, read the bible, do good deeds etc. Wrong. Its not about what you do but about who you are. Christianity is not about doing but being. Even Mahatma Gandhi did all the stuff you claim to do but that never m,ade him a christian. To be called a christian any kind at all depends on what God has made you to [i]be [/i]in your spirit.

I disagree in part. While, I agree Christianity isn't just about actions - even though I've heard it's "by their fruits you shall know them" - I disagree that it has anything to do with God making anything in the spirit - it's, in my opinion, linked with what beliefs you hold.

Aproko:
i think your label is definite "CONFUSED". strive for convinction in whatever you choose either as an atheist or a christain. if you are a little of both, then you are still confused or unsure.

Would you also say an agnostic Christian is confused? Unsure? Maybe, but I don't know if confused would be a right descriptor.

remember he who sits on the fence stands the risk of being quashed from both sides.

Which is why I only sit on fences with amicable people on both sides.