People of the Christian faith - Is this true?

[IUtoSLU]

Originally Posted by burningbright

Sorry, but you'll have to clarify a little more as I'm not certain what bearing your question has to what I stated.

I believe what I was trying to say earlier was that all the Reformers tried to do was bring the Church back into a right relationship with God and not one of rote laws and exploitation of the poor and downtrodden. By moving the Church from a static state of pointless laws and rules designed to ultimately benefit the clergy to a dynamic one of meaningful personal and communal relationship with God, the Reformers helped to restore the Church to a right relationship with God.

When you say Christianity you should probably specify if you're referring to Christ or followers of Christ because it's like night and day. One is a figure that some people believe is the Son of God who did not sin while the other are followers of Christ who are capable of every conceivable act of sinfulness. So I'm not certain if you are asking if God is immutable (I believe he is) or whether Christians are immutable (I believe they are not). I would say that Christians try and follow the words of Christ, which are immutable. His words do not change as humans move forward through time.

Probably not the answer you're looking for, but if you can provide an example of what you're asking, I can try and provide a more pertinent answer. Though I may end up crapping this thread up pretty good.

You do realize that Calvin eventually made and ran his own theocracy in a city (Geneva). He put 'witches' and heretics to death, preached against the evils of the Jews, and severely limited what were refer to today as "human rights" of his people?

I'm just always surprised when people think Luther, Calvin, et al were so much 'better' than the papacy.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by emptym

When did Xy stop having the right to change? I'm betting it was w/in the last 50 yrs...
some time around when you decided you were too good for it.

Well that's one of my beefs. If something is correct, it doesn't change, except to become wrong. If something is wrong and needs changing, well, that's a mighty poor belief system you have so much invested in.

Originally Posted by RSS

Whatever floats your boat, Bigboy ... whatever floats your boat.

Well, that's just the thing. I don't need anything to float my boat. Apparently, you do. I'm not saying either is superior, but I am saying I get a chuckle at how yours gets floated.

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Well, that's just the thing. I don't need anything to float my boat. Apparently, you do. I'm not saying either is superior, but I am saying I get a chuckle at how yours gets floated.
Piobaire ... if nothing floats your boat ... that's fine ... but it's still something. It's just that in your case ... nothing is your something.

It appears that chuckling floats your boat too. Enjoy.

As to what I believe ... I recall saying that I am a Buddhipalian … and, of course, there is no such religion. I haven’t said whether I believe something or nothing.

For the record, I do believe in something. I believe that am not the center of the universe (I know that’s difficult to believe, but it’s true) and being in communion with others allows me a connection to something greater than my individual self.

 

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

I hear witches use veal in their rituals.

IDC. You witches and warlocks just best not cast any spells on me or anyone else.

 

[Rambo]

Focus people.

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Well that's one of my beefs. If something is correct, it doesn't change, except to become wrong. If something is wrong and needs changing, well, that's a mighty poor belief system you have so much invested in.
Of course ... if continuing revelation is an inherant part of the original (and this need not be specific to Christianity)... what was right for yesterday ... may not be right for today. No two moments in time are the same.

 

[scarphe]

Originally Posted by burningbright

No they did not.

They simply said they'd had enough of the manifold abuses perpetrated by the Catholic Church. Works instead of faith, celibate priests, confessing to a priest, indulgences, penance, purgatory, Mariology (Mary worship), praying to the saints instead of Christ, having a pope, etc. None of these things are scriptural and were all additional doctrine put forth by the Catholic Church. Some were done out of misguided good intentions down the centuries while others, I feel, were more in the vein of Machiavelli than Christ; designed to keep men in power and the populace under their thumbs.

Dante's Divine Comedy, aside from being a brilliant piece of literature, is a wonderful treatise on the abuses of the Catholic Church; and that was 200 years before Luther had even driven his first nail into the cathedral doors in Wittenberg.

So no, I don't feel they did make changes to Christianity. They simply sought to bring the church back to Christ.

you do realize that the reform movement in the church history, use traditons and doctrines developed by the corrupt body you call the cathlic church? they even modified the bible and what people call the base of christinity. which aspects of the corrupt body do you throw out and which do you keep?

 

[burningbright]

Originally Posted by IUtoSLU

You do realize that Calvin eventually made and ran his own theocracy in a city (Geneva). He put 'witches' and heretics to death, preached against the evils of the Jews, and severely limited what were refer to today as "human rights" of his people?

I'm just always surprised when people think Luther, Calvin, et al were so much 'better' than the papacy.

Yeah, this is why I asked which aspect of Christendom you were talking about: Christ or his followers. Humanity's sinful behavior (including Calvin and Luther) predicates a need for Christ. These men were by no means sinless but that does not mean that every single thing they did in their lives was immoral or meaningless. Calvin's Institutes is one of the most brilliant and well thought out pieces of theology that I think has ever been written. The guy was an uptight blow-hard and nobody in Geneva liked him (to the point where they kicked him out...) but that doesn't mean he never produced anything of use. Luther started out great and finished quite poorly with his anti-Semitic behavior (I could be wrong but I don't remember if Calvin was an anti-Semite). The same could be said about each of us and our sins. They are present within us but they should never define us.

Regardless, it just sounds like to me that your measuring stick for Christians and for non-Christians are not the same when perhaps they should be. People are people. They don't become sinlessly perfect when they become a Christian. It has always perplexed me when I hear people hate on Christianity. If you really look at the words Christ spoke, what is there to hate? He spoke some very difficult and often mysterious things that can only be taken in faith but why should they be hated and reviled? I think people hate on Christianity because they really want to see it work the way Christ made it work; in a way they can tangibly see.

Yet instead, the thing they often see are sinful people who have done and continue to do the most horrible things in the name of Christ. I've read about it throughout history and I see it everyday in my own life, quite often when I look in the mirror. All we can do is hate the sin within those people and ourselves and try and fight the good fight by seriously following Christ's greatest command: To love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

I dunno what else to say.

 

[IUtoSLU]

Originally Posted by burningbright

Yeah, this is why I asked which aspect of Christendom you were talking about: Christ or his followers. Humanity's sinful behavior (including Calvin and Luther) predicates a need for Christ. These men were by no means sinless but that does not mean that every single thing they did in their lives was immoral or meaningless. Calvin's Institutes is one of the most brilliant and well thought out pieces of theology that I think has ever been written. The guy was an uptight blow-hard and nobody in Geneva liked him (to the point where they kicked him out...) but that doesn't mean he never produced anything of use. Luther started out great and finished quite poorly with his anti-Semitic behavior (I could be wrong but I don't remember if Calvin was an anti-Semite). The same could be said about each of us and our sins. They are present within us but they should never define us.

Regardless, it just sounds like to me that your measuring stick for Christians and for non-Christians are not the same when perhaps they should be. People are people. They don't become sinlessly perfect when they become a Christian. It has always perplexed me when I hear people hate on Christianity. If you really look at the words Christ spoke, what is there to hate? He spoke some very difficult and often mysterious things that can only be taken in faith but why should they be hated and reviled? I think people hate on Christianity because they really want to see it work the way Christ made it work; in a way they can tangibly see.

Yet instead, the thing they often see are sinful people who have done and continue to do the most horrible things in the name of Christ. I've read about it throughout history and I see it everyday in my own life, quite often when I look in the mirror. All we can do is hate the sin within those people and ourselves and try and fight the good fight by seriously following Christ's greatest command: To love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

I dunno what else to say.

I am simply objecting to your honoring of the Protestant reformers and saying that they shouldn't be defined by their sins, and yet saying nothing good about Catholics and defining them completely on what they did wrong. I am trying to get you to recognize your bias. When it comes to Protestants, you are very understanding and generous. When it comes to Catholics, you only see the evil things done.

 

[JLibourel]

Originally Posted by burningbright

No they did not.

They simply said they'd had enough of the manifold abuses perpetrated by the Catholic Church. Works instead of faith, celibate priests, confessing to a priest, indulgences, penance, purgatory, Mariology (Mary worship), praying to the saints instead of Christ, having a pope, etc. None of these things are scriptural and were all additional doctrine put forth by the Catholic Church. Some were done out of misguided good intentions down the centuries while others, I feel, were more in the vein of Machiavelli than Christ; designed to keep men in power and the populace under their thumbs.

Dante's Divine Comedy, aside from being a brilliant piece of literature, is a wonderful treatise on the abuses of the Catholic Church; and that was 200 years before Luther had even driven his first nail into the cathedral doors in Wittenberg.

So no, I don't feel they did make changes to Christianity. They simply sought to bring the church back to Christ.

Properly, that would be "Mariolatry." Mariology merely means the study of Mary, something even practiced by Protestants. I believe the position of the Roman Catholic Church (I don't know what the official position of the Orthodox Church is, but I presume it's something similar) is that "latreia" (formal worship) is due God alone. "Douleia"--"service" or "veneration"--is due the saints, and "Hyperdouleia" is due the Blessed Virgin.

 

[burningbright]

Originally Posted by scarphe

you do realize that the reform movement in the church history, use traditons and doctrines developed by the corrupt body you call the cathlic church? they even modified the bible and what people call the base of christinity. which aspects of the corrupt body do you throw out and which do you keep?

Yeah, I'm Anglican, I should know. We receive the Eucharist every week. Not every tradition that the Catholic Church uses was created by men.

Look, I know it sounds like I'm hating on the Catholic Church but as an Anglican I have way more in common with them than I do with a Bible-thumping Baptist. If the Catholic Church got rid of man-made traditions like praying to Christ's earthly mother, the celibate priesthood, indulgences, penance, veneration of the saints, confessing to a priest when Christ will do just fine, purgatory, the papacy etc. then they would actually look exactly like the service I attend each week.

I'm sorry, but Christ did not command that any of the aforementioned things be done yet the Catholic Church continues to perpetuate nearly all of them to this day. So yeah, I think the reformers had the right idea. As I mentioned in an earlier post, none of them were perfect but at least their actions were able to steer a good portion of believers back to Christ and not to some man-made hierarchy designed to keep men in power.

Do Protestants try and exploit Christians? Sure. The Joel Osteens', T.D. Jakes', and virtually any televangelist from the 80's until now did and continues to do this and their behavior is reprehensible. Sin is going to be found in any church or denomination but it's how you address and deal with it that matters. Asking Christ's forgiveness is all you have to do. Saying x amount of Our Fathers and Hail Mary's or sending in your money to some charlatan on TV is a superfluous.

And I am so sorry OP for completely hijacking your thread. I'll stop.

 

[JLibourel]

^Hey "Burning," it's obvious from your comments about the Episcopal Church you are some sort of continuing Anglican. Good for you! I'm mildly curious if you're an American (or not) what body you are with: Anglican Catholic Church, Anglican Church in America, Anglican Church in North America, Angican Province of Christ the King, United Episcopal Church or what? From you sympathetic view of the Reformation, I'd be inclined to suspect the latter.

 

[burningbright]

Originally Posted by IUtoSLU

I am simply objecting to your honoring of the Protestant reformers and saying that they shouldn't be defined by their sins, and yet saying nothing good about Catholics and defining them completely on what they did wrong. I am trying to get you to recognize your bias. When it comes to Protestants, you are very understanding and generous. When it comes to Catholics, you only see the evil things done.

My apologies for this misconception. I was under the impression that the thrust of the discussion was the Reformers and what they were trying to reform and why. It would therefore paint the Catholic Church in a less than favorable light, but not necessarily the individuals within it. I have actually taught Sunday school classes on St. Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises and greatly admire people like him, St. Francis, Julian of Norwich, Bartolome de Las Casas and Mother Teresa. Like the reformers, they were sinful people who did and produced extraordinary things.

I am also a regular attender of Taize services, which is an ecumenical movement of Protestants and Catholics who meet to worship and pray for peace in the world. Believe me I know that both denominations have their own unique set of problems and the last thing I want to be accused of is being biased towards Protestantism. They've lost a lot of the ideas of the mystery of faith that many Catholic mystics such as Julian of Norwich cherished. As an Anglican who grew up Irish Catholic, I straddle the fence of American evangelicalism and the ancient liturgical traditions of the early church (pre-papacy). It's these traditions of the early church that I cherish most, not necessarily the Protestant reformed movement (though I am grateful that it pointed people back before the Catholic Church started). Part of the problem is the polarizing labels of Protestant and Catholic when for me the issue is really the early church episcopate vs. Catholic papacy. Placing one man in power was the Catholic Church's first mistake.

 

[JLibourel]

Originally Posted by burningbright

My apologies for this misconception. I was under the impression that the thrust of the discussion was the Reformers and what they were trying to reform and why. It would therefore paint the Catholic Church in a less than favorable light, but not necessarily the individuals within it. I have actually taught Sunday school classes on St. Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises and greatly admire people like him, St. Francis, Julian of Norwich, Bartolome de Las Casas and Mother Teresa. Like the reformers, they were sinful people who did and produced extraordinary things.

I am also a regular attender of Taize services, which is an ecumenical movement of Protestants and Catholics who meet to worship and pray for peace in the world. Believe me I know that both denominations have their own unique set of problems and the last thing I want to be accused of is being biased towards Protestantism. They've lost a lot of the ideas of the mystery of faith that many Catholic mystics such as Julian of Norwich cherished. As an Anglican who grew up Irish Catholic, I straddle the fence of American evangelicalism and the ancient liturgical traditions of the early church (pre-papacy). It's these traditions of the early church that I cherish most, not necessarily the Protestant reformed movement (though I am grateful that it pointed people back before the Catholic Church started). Part of the problem is the polarizing labels of Protestant and Catholic when for me the issue is really the early church episcopate vs. Catholic papacy. Placing one man in power was the Catholic Church's first mistake.

Agree with a lot of that. However, I don't think the institution of the Papacy was too egregious until Pius IX converted the RC Church into a Papal despotism, especially with the Infalliability doctrine. Even one RC priest of my acquaintance described him as a "madman."

 

[burningbright]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

^Hey "Burning," it's obvious from your comments about the Episcopal Church you are some sort of continuing Anglican. Good for you! I'm mildly curious if you're an American (or not) what body you are with: Anglican Catholic Church, Anglican Church in America, Anglican Church in North America, Angican Province of Christ the King, United Episcopal Church or what? From you sympathetic view of the Reformation, I'd be inclined to suspect the latter.

First of all, good catch with the Mariology/Mariolatry...I knew my suffix was suspect.

Second of all, yes, you have sussed me out. Anglican Communion of North America. Where are you hailing from?

Third of all, words cannot begin to describe how amused I am that this thread has been keeping pace with the "poon-slaying" heyday thread.