Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Awmte · 04-07-2005, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

As for "tracing itself back to him" this seems to be the point made by virtually every mainstream christian church.
...I do find the Church of Rome a somewhat different institution from the first century agape congegations.

PALACE, n. A fine and costly residence, particularly that of a great official. The residence of a high dignitary of the Christian Church is called a palace; that of the Founder of his religion was known as a field, or wayside. There is progress.
- Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Wallener · 04-07-2005, 09:20 PM

Eastern Orthodox did not change the creed from Nicea - where nascent christianity was first orthodoxed - but RC did. EO has a considerably stronger case on the "direct line to original teachings" than RC.

Note: "stronger" does not mean "strong"

John A. Broussard · 04-07-2005, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IAsimisI

The Church is a gobal instituton and not a local one, it has way more members than in the first century, so obviously means of better organization had to be applied. But the teachings of Christ have always been faithfully guarded and preserved.

Like infant baptism?

Evoken · 04-07-2005, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Like infant baptism?

I already explained the need for infant baptism in this very topic a few pages back if I remember correctly.

Evoken · 04-07-2005, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

Eastern Orthodox did not change the creed from Nicea - where nascent christianity was first orthodoxed - but RC did. EO has a considerably stronger case on the "direct line to original teachings" than RC.

Note: "stronger" does not mean "strong"

The issue with the filiogue is one of confusion and misunderstanding and not of any actual error.

Check this link for more info on the EO and RC misunderstandings:

http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp

John A. Broussard · 04-08-2005, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IAsimisI

I already explained the need for infant baptism in this very topic a few pages back if I remember correctly.

Can't find it. Could you summarize?

Evoken · 04-08-2005, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Can't find it. Could you summarize?

Sure, here are a few quotes from the CCC:

Quote:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

Quote:

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.

If you want to see some quotes by the early Fathers of the Church about infant Baptism see these links:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201frs.asp
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/bap...l#tradition-II

StaticAge · 04-08-2005, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

WOW!!! Maybe the 200,000 dead from the recent Indian Ocean tsunami can now rest easy knowing that they were the victims of mankind wielding "authority poorly." We can at least regale the survivors (tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of thousands homeless, a million or so bereaved) with the same explanation.

Everyone will feel better knowing that the disaster wasn't just an "Act of God" as the insurance companies claim.

Natural "disasters" are more or less serving needed functions and often provide significant benefits to various ecosystems. If man worked cooperatively with nature would he suffer less or more from the relationship? And is it possible that if man worked in harmony with each other that a better effort to understanding and detecting certain phenomena could result, and that progress in this is hindered by hostilities between nations, religions, political parties etc? Hypothetically, if man had not rebelled against God, would there not be the benefit that God could forewarn when dangerous phenomena were to take place?

Awmte · 04-08-2005, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StaticAge

Natural "disasters" are more or less serving needed functions and often provide significant benefits to various ecosystems.

I would very much like to see a basis for this claim. The tsunami was a result of tectonic activity and was in no way servile to any ecosystem. I have friends who live in Chennai (India), who were directly affected by the disaster, and who would take deep umbrage at your flippant characterization.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StaticAge

Hypothetically, if man had not rebelled against God, would there not be the benefit that God could forewarn when dangerous phenomena were to take place?

Since God is responsible for the "dangerous phenomena" in the first place, He could manifestly forewarn us (or even better, forswear them).

StaticAge · 04-08-2005, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awmte

I would very much like to see a basis for this claim. The tsunami was a result of tectonic activity and was in no way servile to any ecosystem. I have friends who live in Chennai (India), who were directly affected by the disaster, and who would take deep umbrage at your flippant characterization.

Since God is responsible for the "dangerous phenomena" in the first place, He could manifestly forewarn us (or even better, forswear them).

I am genuinely sympathetic, and am not being flippant, in fact, I'd like to point out that I wasnt the person who used their tragedy as a card to play in a debate, not about the cause of natural disasters, but what "original sin" is.

In any case, there are blooms of biological activity near deep sea thermal vents after ocean transform earthquakes because the earthquakes cause more hot water and nutrients to come to the surface.

You are the one claiming God as responsible, but you make no proof of this claim. I introduce no proof of the opposite, I am only asking that could it be possible that these phenomena are necessary side effects of the world we live in? As far as the situation that the bible posits as the origin of sin, it tells how man liberated himself from God and sought independance and took authority for themselves for what was right and wrong, calling into question the rightness of God's sovreignty, implying he was holding them back. And so God allows man this opportunity to prove the world a better place without God's intervening- including protection or warning from natural phenomena. Further, according to the bible, this futility of life in man's world has a promised remedy of a future paradise and a ressurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous who died from wars, famine, crime, even disasters.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-07-2005, 09:20 PM	#182
Wallener Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,043	Eastern Orthodox did not change the creed from Nicea - where nascent christianity was first orthodoxed - but RC did. EO has a considerably stronger case on the "direct line to original teachings" than RC. Note: "stronger" does not mean "strong"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.