Awmte

A lack of a property is a sin? To whom do we assign the guilt?

Doesn't the anticipation of an eternity of bliss please you? If heaven and hell did not exist, would you still worship God?

Any creator? I don't think even half the members of this forum would demand complete, mindless obedience of their creations. Assuming, of course, that they were able to create...

No true Scotsman?

Coercion doesn't exactly harmonize with free will. Holding an unimaginably horrifying threat such as hell over someone's head would constitute extreme duress. Let me make you an offer you can't resist...

Evoken

Sorry for the late reply, been busy as of late.

I am not saying it should, that's why I adapt myself to it.

No, it doesn't. It speaks volumes about their "total lack of efforts" and more when they claim to (but do not) follow the ideal that they preach. Jesus warned against all these things, the ones who say "Lord, Lord" but do not practice what their preach. Normally one would and even should expect the best representation from those who preach the ideology in question, but as is evident this is not always the case.

You shall know them by their fruits. How do we know which is bad or good fruit? We judge them by the very ideal that they claim to follow.

If you judge The Church by their actions, it certainly looks like it. But if you judge their actions by The Church, you will quickly realize how far from what The Church teaches they are. I used to make the same mistake, but then I changed my perspective and everything became more clear.

What is protected by the Holy Spirit is The Church, the churchmen are sinners like us, they make mistakes but they can never defect The Church.

The objective way is to test their claims as you would any scientist theory, test the claims against the facts. The 30.000 denominations you find today where not around 500 or even 300 years ago and I am sure that the number continues to reduce by going backward in time. So that would really simplify your search.

It is a mortal sin to eat meat in any Friday during the season of Lent. Also these are matters of practice, they are not immutable doctrines of faith and morals.

About Wyclif, I have checked around and he was not burned at all but died a natural dead. His conflict with the Church had nothing to do with translating The Bible into Latin but with him teaching heresy (specially against transurbanisation and Church hierarchy and property). As far as The Church forbidding the translation of The Bible into the vernacular, I have heard nothing like that. But if you have a source, please provide it.

During the Council of Trent, the Church complained about those who were printing bibles doing so without the author names, or by taking parts out of it and they were not printing it in it's entirely. But nothing is said about not translating The Bible into the vernacular in this council or any other of the councils that The Church has held.

I am glad that you are aware of this fact. But remember, this is not something she made up, she is simply following the command of her Lord.

Yes there is an objective way to determine this. The "No True Scotsman" applies because of this. Also, just because one person calls himself Christian doesn't means that he is, you can take his word for it, but if you want to be sure you will have to match his claims, deeds with what The Church teaches. I can call myself an atheist right now and you would call me a liar, why? Because you know that I am Roman Catholic, and atheist does not believe in God. Just like there is an standard to determine who is or is not an atheist, so too there is a standard for determining who is and is not a Christian.

Like I said in a previous post, we cannot judge God, we are to trust him at his judgment knowing that he is just. God's commands are for man not for God.

Evoken

We do not inherit the guilt but the effects. Each one is judged according to their own sins.

Yes I would, just like I did before I decided to become Roman Catholic (I was Gnostic Christian and a sort of Deist before that). I am not assured of my salvation, so I can't take that for granted. I am not going to lie to you and tell you that an "anticipation of an eternity of bliss" does not gives comfort. But personally I don't think much about it and I don't think one should base their obedience to God solely on what reward one will get out of it, I think that this kind of faithfulness is misplaced, a sort of Pascal Wager, if you will. One should love God and obey him, freely and without interest.

Like I pointed in my previous post. The "No True Scotsman" applies because there is an objective standard to determine who is and is not a Christian.

John A. Broussard

For years I've been wanting to find out who is a Christian. Catholics tell me one thing, Mormons tell me another, SDA's etc.


Can you tell me? Hopefully in 25 words or less.

Evoken

Sure, i'll quote myself:
Yay! Less than 25 words!

Also if you want, check my reply to knotted paragon, who asked me a similar question:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...4&postcount=73

Avatar

Take your time. The same thing has been happening on my end.

The Catholic Church does not have a very good record of adapting, however. Ever read The Dark Side of Christian History by Helen Ellerbe?

What bothers me just as much are the ones who say "Lord, Lord", and do practice what they preach. YECs, Christian Identity, and worse. I also seem to recall a promenent historical figure who devoutly tried to manifest a purely "Christian" kingdom in Geneva a few centuries ago. Need I mention the instances of mass murder and torture in the name of this "Christian" kingdom? I regard Geneva and the many efforts in history to accomplish the same thing as a warning against what happens when the Christian Faith (or any other for that matter) is put in control of the secular world.

Sadly, no organization produces all good fruits and all bad fruits. Even the most rabid fundamentalists in America have worked hard to do good charity work...as much as it burns my mouth to say that. By the same token, even the most well-intended faithful have committed acts of monstrous degree for the sake of their faiths. The answer is not as black and white as the Catholic Church tries to make it look.

Since the Catholic Church seems to consider spiritual facism an ideal to aspire to, I don't think you might want to use that arguement.

I will not judge the Chruch by the ideal it tries to claim it is, I will judge it by the only thing available--the evidence of what it actually has been and is. It goes without saying that no religious faith of any sort can possibly make any claim to perfection.

I disagree...the chruchmen are the church. The churchmen are the ones who make the descisions, make choices, and decide where the church stands on various issued. The only difference is that churchmen have a built-it "out"--if something doesn't make sense, they simply blame it on "God's mysterious ways."

Duration is irrelevant. Judaism has been around longer than the Catholic faith...should I join them?

Why? Is God a vegan? What does it matter to an infinite being what I eat when? Why does God feel the need to tell me what I can eat when?

The Church would gladly have you believe otherwise. God's motto seems to be "believe or die".

Perhaps I am thinking of the wrong monk then. During Mideaval History (many years ago), I recall peing particularly incensed over the fact that a monk was burned for daring to translate the Bible into English--during the Dark Ages, it was considered heresy for the citizenry to have Bibles of their own...only through the Church was it acceptable.

The only interpetation of the Bible that was permitted during the Middle Ages was interpetation by the priesthood--a fact that led to massive corruption and eventually to the Reformation.

I disagree. As far as I can tell, a lot of the Christian dogma seems to be made up on the fly. Fads in faith and practice of said faith have come and gone at a faster rate than clothing.

No, there is not. All Christian sects claim the following: Sole authority on the Word of God. Miracles that "validate" the faith. Visions that are often shoehorned to fit events (see the Fatima "prophecies"). Healings. Reams of documents that are classic examples of circular thinking. The only thing that differentiates the Catholic Church from Rev. Fred's Tabernacle of Christ is the length of its history and dogmatic details. From a purely objective perspective, there is no solid evidence of any one version of faith being better than any other.

The "standard" you speak of is convienently phrased to try to exclude everyone except the Catholic faith...and even then is unverifiable unless one is telepathic.

"Do as I say, not as I do." Sorry, I refuse to give a mass-murderer a free pass due to divinity.

John A. Broussard

Quote: from IAsimisI (On how to find out who is a Christian)

"The objective way is to test their claims as you would any scientist theory, test the claims against the facts."

Is there anyone out there in cyberspace who can tell me what that means?

Avatar

Okay.

Claim: Jesus existed.
Fact: Outside of the Bible, there is little to no information that suggests that Jesus was ever around.

Claim: Jesus performed miracles.
Fact: Unverifiable. The only source for these claims is the Bible. No other outside source can confirm this.

Claim: Souls exist.
Fact: Untestable.

Claim: God exists.
Fact: Untestable.

Claim: The Hebrews fled Egypt en masse led by Moses.
Fact: No evidence of such a migration has been found.

Claim: The Pope is infallable when he speaks for God.
Fact: There is no litmus test to verify this claim.

Claim: It is a mortal sin to _________
Fact: Unverifiable and untestable.

Claim: Jesus passed the Church to Peter who passed it to...
Fact: Unverifiable and unreliable. There is no direct testimony from Jesus about his intentions...only what others wrote about him decades after the fact.

How am I doing so far?

Awmte

This would be a most cogent argument, except for the fact that its called 'Original Sin'. Why not call it something more innocuous, like 'Original Effects' or sumthin...

I seem to be repeating myself, but: Coercion doesn't exactly harmonize with free will. Holding an unimaginably horrifying threat such as hell over someone's head would constitute extreme duress. Let me make you an offer you can't resist...

Actually, any time the Pope makes a statement of scientific import, it is eminently testable. For example, statements on natural sciences such as evolutionary theory, cosmology, etc. should be easily subject to verification

John A. Broussard

So far. so good.

Now let's test a claim against a fact to identify a Christian.

Better yet, I'd like to have IAsimisI do it.