Religious

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Would you count the world's 1.2 billion Catholics as Christians?

I'd count them, along with my late mother, as Catholics who believed in Christianity, as it was presented to them, and as she understood it.
In the context of what they are told and believe, I would count them as Christians.
Were they misguided Christians? Would Christ accept them as Christians? Those are questions beyond my pay scale and understanding.

Therein lies the problem with organized religion.
You are born, and in many instances, you are indoctrinated, asked, or insisted upon to believe the entire menu of what individuals, usually men, have accepted as true for hundreds of years before you are born.
Do not think for yourself. Accept it.
If you agree with that, fine.
Heaven forbid that you disagree with that-- especially within a devout family- look out.
What most people do is become "Cafeteria Christians or Cafeteria Muslims or Cafeteria you name its."
In that regard, I admire boxcar's insistence on having none of that pick and choose stuff.
In terms of the Bible, he gets it.
Not that I agree with a lot of his interpretations, but he has reasoned out arguments about why he believes in his convictions.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I'd count them, along with my late mother, as Catholics who believed in Christianity, as it was presented to them, and as she understood it.
In the context of what they are told and believe, I would count them as Christians.
Were they misguided Christians? Would Christ accept them as Christians? Those are questions beyond my pay scale and understanding.

Therein lies the problem with organized religion.
You are born, and in many instances, you are indoctrinated, asked, or insisted upon to believe the entire menu of what individuals, usually men, have accepted as true for hundreds of years before you are born.
Do not think for yourself. Accept it.
If you agree with that, fine.
Heaven forbid that you disagree with that-- especially within a devout family- look out.
What most people do is become "Cafeteria Christians or Cafeteria Muslims or Cafeteria you name its."
In that regard, I admire boxcar's insistence on having none of that pick and choose stuff.
In terms of the Bible, he gets it.
Not that I agree with a lot of his interpretations, but he has reasoned out arguments about why he believes in his convictions.

Truth is just like the Law of Moses. The Law was one body of truth. The Law was as indivisible as God is. But the Law was given to one nation and was temporary. That Covenant of Law (a/k/a Old Covenant) was done away with and replaced with a better covenant -- the New Covenant. The bible makes all this pretty clear. Yet, within Christendom there are many professing believers who insist on cherry-picking the Law. For example, not too long ago a Sunday school teacher told a story about how he tried to convince someone to tithe -- that tithing was the "right" thing to do, etc. When I heard this, I cringed. I felt like asking him if he told this person to also make sure make all the animal sacrifices under the very same Law that required this act of tithing. I call this kind of hermeneutic or method of interpretation fracturing.

I don't believe I would be exaggerating at all to say this fracturing method of interpretation (which is a great abuse of scripture performed by both believers and unbelievers alike) is at the very least one of the top three major causes for the sad, pathetic state the Church finds itself today. When we fracture something, we damage it. We destroy it. We break it up. In fact, we cannot help but violate the Truth. It is no wonder at all there are more sects and denominations out there than Carter has little liver pills. And we have seen this fracturing method put into practice often on this thread.

Look at Light and Thask and how they have insisted that Jesus told the Pharisees that the kingdom of God was "within" them, conveniently ignoring many other closely related truths in other portions of God's Word that tell us that this interpretation cannot possibly be correct. In fact, they ignored both the immediate and larger context of scripture.

Then I quoted 2Cor 4:6 to show Light that God shines his light only in the hearts of his people (elect). He wrote back telling me that 2Cor 4:6 doesn't say that, while ignoring Paul's opening remarks in chapter 1 of the epistle which shows that Paul was addressing his letter only to the saints. I could go on with numerous other examples, but I don't have all day.

But to show you how beyond insane things can get when we fracture scripture, I read recently about a Presbyterian pastor who taught his flock that machines (more specifically of the A.I. type) are also in need of Christ's redemption. (If this kind of insanity exists here on earth, I cannot even begin to imagine what hell will be like!)

The point to all this should be obvious. Anyone who is honestly seeking the truth must be willing to follow the lead of it. The problem is that everyone wants to take their own little detours to follow their own path, and in so doing fracture the homogenous, harmonious, unified body of truth. People naturally do not want to follow the straight and narrow path which is why Christ taught only a few find it and travel on it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Would you count the world's 1.2 billion Catholics as Christians?

Would you count all the Muslims in the world to be Islamist?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Truth is just like the Law of Moses. The Law was one body of truth. The Law was as indivisible as God is. But the Law was given to one nation and was temporary. That Covenant of Law (a/k/a Old Covenant) was done away with and replaced with a better covenant -- the New Covenant. The bible makes all this pretty clear. Yet, within Christendom there are many professing believers who insist on cherry-picking the Law. For example, not too long ago a Sunday school teacher told a story about how he tried to convince someone to tithe -- that tithing was the "right" thing to do, etc. When I heard this, I cringed. I felt like asking him if he told this person to also make sure make all the animal sacrifices under the very same Law that required this act of tithing. I call this kind of hermeneutic or method of interpretation fracturing.

I don't believe I would be exaggerating at all to say this fracturing method of interpretation (which is a great abuse of scripture performed by both believers and unbelievers alike) is at the very least one of the top three major causes for the sad, pathetic state the Church finds itself today. When we fracture something, we damage it. We destroy it. We break it up. In fact, we cannot help but violate the Truth. It is no wonder at all there are more sects and denominations out there than Carter has little liver pills. And we have seen this fracturing method put into practice often on this thread.

Look at Light and Thask and how they have insisted that Jesus told the Pharisees that the kingdom of God was "within" them, conveniently ignoring many other closely related truths in other portions of God's Word that tell us that this interpretation cannot possibly be correct. In fact, they ignored both the immediate and larger context of scripture.

Then I quoted 2Cor 4:6 to show Light that God shines his light only in the hearts of his people (elect). He wrote back telling me that 2Cor 4:6 doesn't say that, while ignoring Paul's opening remarks in chapter 1 of the epistle which shows that Paul was addressing his letter only to the saints. I could go on with numerous other examples, but I don't have all day.

But to show you how beyond insane things can get when we fracture scripture, I read recently about a Presbyterian pastor who taught his flock that machines (more specifically of the A.I. type) are also in need of Christ's redemption. (If this kind of insanity exists here on earth, I cannot even begin to imagine what hell will be like!)

The point to all this should be obvious. Anyone who is honestly seeking the truth must be willing to follow the lead of it. The problem is that everyone wants to take their own little detours to follow their own path, and in so doing fracture the homogenous, harmonious, unified body of truth. People naturally do not want to follow the straight and narrow path which is why Christ taught only a few find it and travel on it.

You are a fool, Boxcar...and no dressed-up rhetoric that you resort to can conceal that fact. Thaskalos and Light aren't the only ones who insist that Jesus declared that the Kingdom of God is within us. Just google this Gospel of Luke passage...and you'll find plenty of translations which agree with Light and myself.

And I got news for you. Christianity was never the "homogenous, harmonious, unified body of truth" that you advertise it to be. The early Christians were fighting among themselves about the meaning of Jesus's teachings since the time of Jesus's death. Lift your nose off the bible for long enough to study the history of the early Christians...and you'll discover a few things that you never knew existed. Of course...why bother with the facts, when your mind is already made up?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You are a fool, Boxcar...and no dressed-up rhetoric that you resort to can conceal that fact. Thaskalos and Light aren't the only ones who insist that Jesus declared that the Kingdom of God is within us. Just google this Gospel of Luke passage...and you'll find plenty of translations which agree with Light and myself.

And I got news for you. Christianity was never the "homogenous, harmonious, unified body of truth" that you advertise it to be. The early Christians were fighting among themselves about the meaning of Jesus's teachings since the time of Jesus's death. Lift your nose off the bible for long enough to study the history of the early Christians...and you'll discover a few things that you never knew existed. Of course...why bother with the facts, when your mind is already made up?

I'm the fool? But yet you cannot comprehend what I wrote. I never said Christianity was the "homogenous, harmonious, unified body of truth." The bible was not the product of Christianity (i.e. belivers). The ultimate Author is God. The inspired Scriptures are the homogenous, harmonious, unified body of truth. Not Christianity.

Furthermore, while many do interpret the Luke 21 passage as you and Light do only reinforces my point that most professing Christians "fracture" the truth! Did you not read what I said at the end of my post? Only a "few", according to Jesus, find and travel that narrow path to eternal life. So....if you're betting on the majority of interpretations in this case, you'd be wagering on the majority who have taken their own detours. Truth is not decided by a show of hands.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm the fool? But yet you cannot comprehend what I wrote. I never said Christianity was the "homogenous, harmonious, unified body of truth." The bible was not the product of Christianity (i.e. belivers). The ultimate Author is God. The inspired Scriptures are the homogenous, harmonious, unified body of truth. Not Christianity.

Furthermore, while many do interpret the Luke 21 passage as you and Light do only reinforces my point that most professing Christians "fracture" the truth! Did you not read what I said at the end of my post? Only a "few", according to Jesus, find and travel that narrow path to eternal life. So....if you're betting on the majority of interpretations in this case, you'd be wagering on the majority who have taken their own detours. Truth is not decided by a show of hands.

You are a walking contradiction, Boxcar. When you want to prove a point, then the "majority" is a good thing...and you remind us that Christianity is the world's most popular religion. But when the "majority" contradicts your point of view...then we are back to the "narrow path", and the "few" who are destined to walk it to the eternal life.

If only the "few" can travel down the narrow path to the eternal life...then how do you know that these few won't be just Light and myself? There are many Christian fundamentalists, and so many more "Christians"; you can't possibly think that Jesus was talking about THEM when he said "few"...do you?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You are a walking contradiction, Boxcar. When you want to prove a point, then the "majority" is a good thing...and you remind us that Christianity is the world's most popular religion. But when the "majority" contradicts your point of view...then we are back to the "narrow path", and the "few" who are destined to walk it to the eternal life.

If only the "few" can travel down the narrow path to the eternal life...then how do you know that these few won't be just Light and myself? There are many Christian fundamentalists, and so many more "Christians"; you can't possibly think that Jesus was talking about THEM when he said "few"...do you?

Not to fear. No one is traveling down the narrow path who holds the Word of God in half the disdain you do.

Also, did anyone ever tell you that doubt is not a virtue?

James 1:6-8
6 But let him ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For let not that man expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, 8 being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
NASB

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And I would also remind you that it was the bible that "inspired" the invention of the printing press -- not the Qumran.

The discussion was Renaissance versus Reformation. The Qumran was side divergence Greyfox's Islamophobia hiccuped into this discussion.

http://www.learner.org/interactives/.../printing.html

In the Renaissance, the educated middle classes, who could now afford books, demanded works in their own languages. Furthermore, readers wanted a greater variety of books. Almanacs, travel books, chivalry romances, and poetry were all published at this time. Simultaneously, a means of printing music was also invented, making music available at a reasonable cost. As the demand for books grew, the book trade began to flourish throughout Europe, and industries related to it, such as papermaking, thrived as well. The result of all of this was a more literate populace and a stronger economy.

Humanism Emerges.....

Books also helped to spread awareness of a new philosophy that emerged when Renaissance scholars known as humanists returned to the works of ancient writers. In the Renaissance, the educated middle classes, who could now afford books, demanded works in their own languages. Furthermore, readers wanted a greater variety of books. Almanacs, travel books, chivalry romances, and poetry were all published at this time. Simultaneously, a means of printing music was also invented, making music available at a reasonable cost. As the demand for books grew, the book trade began to flourish throughout Europe, and industries related to it, such as papermaking, thrived as well. The result of all of this was a more literate populace and a stronger economy.


Also............

1-The use of movable type in printing was invented in 1041 AD by Bi Sheng in China. Since there are thousands of Chinese characters, the benefit of the technique is not as obvious as in European languages.

2-Yes the bible readers of that era provided the profitability for Gutenberg to continue but, initially the first recipients of Gutenberg efforts were the members of Catholic Church. His initial efforts enabled him in 1440 to mass-produce indulgences -- printed slips of paper sold by the Catholic Church to remit temporal punishments in purgatory for sins committed in this life, for those wealthy enough to afford indulgences.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The discussion was Renaissance versus Reformation. The Qumran was side divergence Greyfox's Islamophobia hiccuped into this discussion.

http://www.learner.org/interactives/.../printing.html

In the Renaissance, the educated middle classes, who could now afford books, demanded works in their own languages. Furthermore, readers wanted a greater variety of books. Almanacs, travel books, chivalry romances, and poetry were all published at this time. Simultaneously, a means of printing music was also invented, making music available at a reasonable cost. As the demand for books grew, the book trade began to flourish throughout Europe, and industries related to it, such as papermaking, thrived as well. The result of all of this was a more literate populace and a stronger economy.

Humanism Emerges.....

Books also helped to spread awareness of a new philosophy that emerged when Renaissance scholars known as humanists returned to the works of ancient writers. In the Renaissance, the educated middle classes, who could now afford books, demanded works in their own languages. Furthermore, readers wanted a greater variety of books. Almanacs, travel books, chivalry romances, and poetry were all published at this time. Simultaneously, a means of printing music was also invented, making music available at a reasonable cost. As the demand for books grew, the book trade began to flourish throughout Europe, and industries related to it, such as papermaking, thrived as well. The result of all of this was a more literate populace and a stronger economy.


Also............

1-The use of movable type in printing was invented in 1041 AD by Bi Sheng in China. Since there are thousands of Chinese characters, the benefit of the technique is not as obvious as in European languages.

2-Yes the bible readers of that era provided the profitability for Gutenberg to continue but, initially the first recipients of Gutenberg efforts were the members of Catholic Church. His initial efforts enabled him in 1440 to mass-produce indulgences -- printed slips of paper sold by the Catholic Church to remit temporal punishments in purgatory for sins committed in this life, for those wealthy enough to afford indulgences.

Yeah...and then there is always the Gutenberg Bible.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The discussion was Renaissance versus Reformation. The Qumran was side divergence Greyfox's Islamophobia hiccuped into this discussion.

http://www.learner.org/interactives/.../printing.html

In the Renaissance, the educated middle classes, who could now afford books, demanded works in their own languages. Furthermore, readers wanted a greater variety of books. Almanacs, travel books, chivalry romances, and poetry were all published at this time. Simultaneously, a means of printing music was also invented, making music available at a reasonable cost. As the demand for books grew, the book trade began to flourish throughout Europe, and industries related to it, such as papermaking, thrived as well. The result of all of this was a more literate populace and a stronger economy.

Humanism Emerges.....

Books also helped to spread awareness of a new philosophy that emerged when Renaissance scholars known as humanists returned to the works of ancient writers. In the Renaissance, the educated middle classes, who could now afford books, demanded works in their own languages. Furthermore, readers wanted a greater variety of books. Almanacs, travel books, chivalry romances, and poetry were all published at this time. Simultaneously, a means of printing music was also invented, making music available at a reasonable cost. As the demand for books grew, the book trade began to flourish throughout Europe, and industries related to it, such as papermaking, thrived as well. The result of all of this was a more literate populace and a stronger economy.


Also............

1-The use of movable type in printing was invented in 1041 AD by Bi Sheng in China. Since there are thousands of Chinese characters, the benefit of the technique is not as obvious as in European languages.

2-Yes the bible readers of that era provided the profitability for Gutenberg to continue but, initially the first recipients of Gutenberg efforts were the members of Catholic Church. His initial efforts enabled him in 1440 to mass-produce indulgences -- printed slips of paper sold by the Catholic Church to remit temporal punishments in purgatory for sins committed in this life, for those wealthy enough to afford indulgences.

Oh yeah...on that "new philosophy" that emerged. How beyond ironic that the world's historians call this period the Renaissance period when in fact this period marked the beginning of the end of classical Greek philosophy and, therefore, the inevitable consequence of the escalation of the end of this age which we're witnessing with the spiraling decline of morality. Once the modern "philosophers" (if I dare call most of them that!) "killed" Platonism and Aristotleism (most especially the latter after Aquinas refined it), we have seen nothing but a moral decay sweep across the planet. It's no wonder at all Paul said that sinners are darkness itself!

Yeah...let's hear it for the Renaissance!

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah...let's hear it for the Renaissance!

What a pity...that you were born 700 years too late.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah...and then there is always the Gutenberg Bible.

Yeah, and it's Roman Catholic not Protstant or the product of the Reformation.

1483. Birth of Luther, November 10.
1509 Birth of Calvin. July 10.

Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1445 before your buddies even walked on the planet. The Italian Renaissance (1330-1550) with roots further back was the deciding factor. Not the Reformation. If anything as I told you it was the Catholic church initially influencing Gutenberg to print and mass produce in 1440 indulgences -- printed slips of paper sold by the Catholic Church.

The first finished copies of the bible that Gutenberg printed were available in 1454 or 1455. Must have been Roman Catholic Church bibles.

When did Luther start preaching and when was the Protestant dogma formalized? I thought it was considered to have begun in 1517 when Luther published The Ninety-Five Theses.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by TJDave

What a pity...that you were born 700 years too late.

Yeah. Just our luck...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh yeah...on that "new philosophy" that emerged. How beyond ironic that the world's historians call this period the Renaissance period when in fact this period marked the beginning of the end of classical Greek philosophy and, therefore, the inevitable consequence of the escalation of the end of this age which we're witnessing with the spiraling decline of morality. Once the modern "philosophers" (if I dare call most of them that!) "killed" Platonism and Aristotleism (most especially the latter after Aquinas refined it), we have seen nothing but a moral decay sweep across the planet. It's no wonder at all Paul said that sinners are darkness itself!

Yeah...let's hear it for the Renaissance!

More importantly it signified the beginning of the end of religious control by both the RCC and it's splintered-off stepchild of YOU and YOUR GUYS, and paved the way for later developments like the Age of Reason, the political "enlightenment", the rise of democratic nations and the advent of the scientific method. And guess what? Classical scholarship did not die off in the Renaissance. Much more knowledge of many subjects spread in Europe including knowledge of ancient civilizations and Greek and Roman philosophies/philosophers.

I guess instead you still hold on to some remnants of the "glorious" Middle/Dark ages you bemoan in that you still believe in evil spirits and I assume you rather miss the hot times of the Salem Witch trials. Cotton Mather must be a hero.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh yeah...on that "new philosophy" that emerged. How beyond ironic that the world's historians call this period the Renaissance period when in fact this period marked the beginning of the end of classical Greek philosophy and, therefore, the inevitable consequence of the escalation of the end of this age which we're witnessing with the spiraling decline of morality. Once the modern "philosophers" (if I dare call most of them that!) "killed" Platonism and Aristotleism (most especially the latter after Aquinas refined it), we have seen nothing but a moral decay sweep across the planet. It's no wonder at all Paul said that sinners are darkness itself!

Yeah...let's hear it for the Renaissance!

How beyond ironic that the world's historians call this period the Renaissance period when in fact this period marked the beginning of the end of classical Greek philosophy and, therefore, the inevitable consequence of the escalation of the end of this age

Psst Boxie.... When you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about please consider not posting. Did you think no one would notice that literally everything you say here is a LIE.

Humanism
Main article: Renaissance humanism
In some ways Humanism was not a philosophy but a method of learning. In contrast to the medieval scholastic mode, which focused on resolving contradictions between authors, humanists would study ancient texts in the original, and appraise them through a combination of reasoning and empirical evidence. Humanist education was based on the programme of 'Studia Humanitatis', that being the study of five humanities: poetry, grammar, history, moral philosophy and rhetoric. Although historians have sometimes struggled to define humanism precisely, most have settled on "a middle of the road definition... the movement to recover, interpret, and assimilate the language, literature, learning and values of ancient Greece and Rome"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Renaissance