Christianity Has Lost Its Fundamental Principle!!!

If you don't know what Jesus commanded then you most likely you a tare because God made sure He preserved the writings of all those who knew Jesus personally, or had an encounter whit Him (Mathew, Mark, Luke John, Paul and others in the Bible).......it is because you don't want to know. It also means that you lack faith in God's ability to make sure His inspired word is preserved for His people today. And the Bible says it is impossible to please God without faith.

 

Again, you don't seem mainstream christian. You have your own ideas and theories different from the vast vast majority of christians who believe to their dying last breath, the earth is 6000 yrs old. Someone is wrong. Someone has the christian ideology wrong, will those that are wrong go to darnkness?

 

What I said isnt theoreticial. It is fact. According to religion, we can never ever not sin. No way, no how. So, correcting others sinful behavior is fruitless and hypocritical. Is one sin more or less in the eyes of God? Or is all sin on equal footing? If sin is ranked, is heaven ranked according to what sins one committed? Is hell ranked according to the sins one committed?

 

According to you, you have to have the right bible, correctly interpreted and translated. The vast majority of christians don't have the knowledge or use that bible.
So, I ask again. Will heaven be a lonely place?

 

Catholic Catechism: Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters’” (1782). This teaching is at the heart of what it means to have free will.

It is not sinful to argue against moral wrongs especially when such sin defies Jesus' teachings. Did Jesus not publicly do the same?

Hell is not a place deep within the earth's bowels. Hell is the absence of God.

We live our lives the best we can attempting to avoid sin. However, since we are imperfect humans obviously we will continue to struggle with sin. If you believe God is not aware of our flaws, then you missed the message of Jesus' crucifixion.

 

Isn't it a bit odd that the following verses can easily be applied in today's society?

Romans 1: 18 - 32 (NIV)

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

I suggest we locate & fix our moral compass before it's too late.

 

To late for what? Another world wide flood?
It wasn't fixed 2500 yrs ago, did God expect his creation would be different the 2nd time around?

 

That is in the catholic catechism. Roman catholic is a man made religion, with man made rules.
Sects broke away from roman catholic because they didn't follow the bible in accuracy. Ever hear of Martin Luther King?

I find it highly illogicial to try and live a "sin free" life. There is no way possible to do that.
Following the golden rule is about as good as one can get. Do unto others what you would want others to do unto you.

Again, is 1 sin more sinful than another?
If so, is heaven or with God, based on what and how many sins one committed?

 

Where did I give you the impression that there was a worldwide flood? On the contrary. I stated the flood was local, which is perfectly in line with Catholic doctrine. BTW You missed the reminder of a covenant between God & man in the form of a rainbow.

As far as MLK is concerned he is entitled to his opinion, is he not? You see unlike protestant preachers & their respective hierarchy the RC Church understands the Bible is a collection of writings which the Church of God has solemnly recognized as inspired. Inspiration can be considered in God, who produces it; in man, who is its object; and in the text, which is its term. Therefore, Catholics do not interpret the Bible in a literal sense. We are schooled on the various writing styles of the authors, the audiences addressed, and the historic significance as to comprehending the mind-frame of the ancient ones at the time of writing. The four Gospels are the heart & soul of the RC Church. The lessons in the O/T are used to remind us of Jesus' fulfillment of scripture.

I think you argue just for argument's sake. God needn't lift his figurative finger. Man is on the road to destroying himself at lightning speed.

Did you miss the part where I stated all institutionalized religions are man made? The difference is the Catholic Church was established by Jesus' command. Peter is our first Pope.

 

Oops. Not MLK. Martin Luther and his 95 thesis. Sorry.

 

You didn't give me the impression. All of christianity gave me the impression about the world wide flood. And wasn't the covenant to tell man there would be no other world wide flood? Because we still get devastating floods in the world.

Catholic = Universal, yes.
Roman Catholic, not so sure as man or the church instilled many things not consistant with Jesus' teachings.

I'm not agruing. I asking questions and not getting answers.
For the 3rd time: Is 1 sin more sinful than another?
If so, then is heaven, ie with God, ranked?
I'll take a non answer as a NO. And therefore, questioning peoples lifestyles based on what you think should be a lifestyle is no more sinful than a unholy thought.

This being 1 of them.
Luther's Theses argued that the sale of indulgences was a gross violation of the original intention of confession and penance, and that Christians were being falsely told that they could find absolution through the purchase of indulgences.

 

No need to be sorry. My statement is applicable just the same.

 

Hmmm. Petty insults and anger. You'd be a "Christian", right?

"Ethereal" is simply a word to describe a state of being other than physical. Apparently, the humility to learn or admit someone else is simply not there with you. Christian, right? So when I pointed out that the "gnashing of teeth" would be in need of interpretation because souls don't have physical bodies, you were sarcastic and apparently felt the need to attack - again. "Christian" right?

Apparently, this was too difficult for you. I've bolded a few words below to make it easier for you:

You take a small part of The Bible literally.
You throw out stuff that blows.
You interpret the rest in the way you prefer.

Just like all Christians.

Hmmm. Lots of petty name calling but you still dodge the point. BTW, I don't play the game you reference.

Yes. You pick and choose. I can prove this easily.

You do not heed the laws in Ecclesiastes.
You do not hate your mother and father as Jesus commanded. I would bet you throw this out or "interpret" to be more convenient for you.
Heck, you probably don't even condone slavery or stoning people to death for mowing their lawn on the week end!
YOu might not even consider someone permamently in a state of sin and therefore danmed for divorcing and re-marrying.

So you throw all that out.

You probably take "Honor thy mother & father" literally - which Oops! Contradicts Jesus' words on the subject.
And so on.

You pick and choose. SOME literal. SOME you throw out. The REST you interpret. Just as I Told you you did.
You may now continue dodging this fact and slinging the anger and petty insults of a "Christian". Christ would be so proud of your example of engaging in a temperant discussion... not.

 

DA: You didn't give me the impression. All of christianity gave me the impression about the world wide flood. And wasn't the covenant to tell man there would be no other world wide flood? Because we still get devastating floods in the world.

JoA: Well, you're wrong.

DA: Catholic = Universal, yes.
Roman Catholic, not so sure as man or the church instilled many things not consistant with Jesus' teachings.

JoA: Sure the Church is in line with Jesus' teaching. Why do you think I never left my faith given all the choices I had? Would Jesus approve of abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, war for self-interests, etc? The RC Church is quite vocal about such social issues.

DA: I'm not agruing. I asking questions and not getting answers.
For the 3rd time: Is 1 sin more sinful than another?
If so, then is heaven, ie with God, ranked?

JoA: Sin is sin. It is a moral evil. When we are not honest with ourselves is it no lesser or equal to a sin of omission? De-Nile is a long river in Egypt that many people travel daily.

I once posed a question to my spiritual director. I asked if it were a sin to lie about harboring a Jew to the gestapo in order to save a life. His answer was that God would judge by the action of saving someone's life, not by the lie. Love of neighbor transcends all.

DA: I'll take a non answer as a NO. And therefore, questioning peoples lifestyles based on what you think should be a lifestyle is no more sinful than a unholy thought.

JoA: Don't assume anything. I rarely respond to silly questions especially while multitasking.

DA: This being 1 of them.
Luther's Theses argued that the sale of indulgences was a gross violation of the original intention of confession and penance, and that Christians were being falsely told that they could find absolution through the purchase of indulgences.

JoA: What didn't you understand about my response? ML is entitled to his opinion just as anyone else. Because he was obsessed with the RC Church and wrote an enormous amount of theses, does it mean he was right? Nope. It's like saying because I rarely comment on Richard Dawkin's tirades in his book, "The God Delusion," all that Dawkins states must be true. Seriously now. You need to recheck the usage of such logic.

Funny thing about the RC Church, the Church does admit to abuses within its hierarchy. Very few other religious leader do.

The word indulgence (Latin indulgentia, from indulgeo, to be kind or tender) originally meant kindness or favor; in post-classic Latin it came to mean the remission of a tax or debt. In Roman law and in the Vulgate of the Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1) it was used to express release from captivity or punishment. In theological language also the word is sometimes employed in its primary sense to signify the kindness and mercy of God. But in the special sense in which it is here considered, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Among the equivalent terms used in antiquity were pax, remissio, donatio, condonatio.

What an indulgence is not

To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject...

Apocryphal indulgences

One of the worst abuses was that of inventing or falsifying grants of indulgence. Previous to the Reformation, such practices abounded and called out severe pronouncements by ecclesiastical authority, especially by the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) and that of Vienne (1311). After the Council of Trent the most important measure taken to prevent such frauds was the establishment of the Congregation of Indulgences. A special commission of cardinals served under Clement VIII and Paul V, regulating all matters pertaining to indulgences. The Congregation of Indulgences was definitively established by Clement IX in 1669 and reorganized by Clement XI in 1710. It has rendered efficient service by deciding various questions relative to the granting of indulgences and by its publications. The "Raccolta" was first issued by one of its consultors, Telesforo Galli, in 1807; the last three editions 1877, 1886, and 1898 were published by the Congregation. The other official publication is the "Decreta authentica", containing the decisions of the Congregation from 1668 to 1882. This was published in 1883 by order of Leo XIII. See also "Rescripta authentica" by Joseph Schneider (Ratisbon, 1885). By a Motu Proprio of Pius X, dated 28 January, 1904, the Congregation of Indulgences was united to the Congregation of Rites, without any diminution, however, of its prerogatives...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

 

The Bible nowhere said anything about anyone going to Heaven. The reason why Christians believe this is because they are not studying the Bible, and even when they read it, they limit it to just a few verses. The belief that God is going to take Christians to Heaven when Jesus returns make Jesus look like a liar, because He said the meek will inherit the Earth. And I never said anything about as you call it, the right bible, correctly interpreted and translated.

 

I guess someone better tell all the christians and their teachers they got it wrong.
What will the NOT meek inherit?

 

In conclusion. One sin or sinner is no better or worse than another.

 

Death........

 

If it was just a local flood why didn't story just say that the principles travelled to another part of the country where there was no flood?

 

I forgot to include in my response to JA, If it was a local flood, why the covenant with all of mankind?

 

I guess from this thread it is safe to say. Religions fundamental principle is to be with God after death. Whether it is heaven as most christians believe or on earth as some christians believe. How one gets to heaven is found in the religion of each and every individual. As each and every individual has their own interpretation. And it is the correct interpretation. Just ask someone.

PS - IMO, the real prinicple for religion seems to be each individual finds peace on themselves as to what is their consciousness or unconsciouness after their body give out.

 

Whatever works for you I suppose. Feel free to self-impose your own conclusion. As for me, I will continue to speak out against the moral wrongs (sins) of our society.

 

well that's fine but it did seem to appear that your target was christianity and christians. DId i misunderstand?

 

You really need to purchase a decent commentary & concordance in order to understand the mind-frame & styles of writing of the ancient ones. It appears you literally interpret the Bible with a modern mind. People who make such an error are often led to the wrong conclusions.

 

yeah. that's what i thought.