-->
@Tradesecret
Don't be frightened little one, my command of the English language and my ability to reason being greater than yours is no reason for you to have a hissy fit.
Another classic: Intercessory Prayer and Efficacy
Posts
Total:
204
-->
@Tradesecret
--> @Tradesecret
Did your god know that the rock didn't fall on the car?
Question too hard for you. Here's an easier one: does your god know all?
It's a crying shame when your beliefs are confronted by reality and logic, isn't it?
-->
@disgusted
Why is it evil? It is completely just. Why would torturing someone in Hell for eternity be evil? God is not bound to the Geneva Convention you realise.
People who have rejected God choose to do so of their own free will. God is eternal - hence his mercy is eternal but so are his punishments. The fact that you - a mere mortal think that punishment of any kind ought to be short as possible - is not the measure of evil.
God is just and his judgments are fair and equitable. He holds to the justice - of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In other words he holds to proportionality.
The question then is whether or not - being tortured for ever is proportionate to sinning against God? If you can demonstrate that it is not proportionate - that your sin is not worthy of eternal punishment, then you may well have a point. But unless you can demonstrate it, then you have no right to call it evil. Your insinuation that God is evil is nothing less than spite.
-->
@disgusted
Of Course God knows all things that he needs to know. and anything that can be known.
-->
@Tradesecret
Does your god know all that he needs to know?
Or
Does he know all things that can be known.
The two statements are contradictory, you godists get all tied up trying to explain your contradictory beliefs.
-->
@Tradesecret
Why is it evil? It is completely just. Why would torturing someone in Hell for eternity be evil? God is not bound to the Geneva Convention you realise.
hahahahahaha very funny. It's not the torturing for eternity that I'm claiming is evil (even though it is) it's your god's decision to create billions of people for that specific person, that is what makes him evil. He knows all. hahahahaha
People who have rejected God choose to do so of their own free will. God is eternal - hence his mercy is eternal but so are his punishments. The fact that you - a mere mortal think that punishment of any kind ought to be short as possible - is not the measure of evil.
Your god creates people with no chance to do anything but reject him, he sees them in hell before he creates them and puts them there for his sadistic pleasure. The rest of your gibberish I'll assume is a result of your failure to comprehend the English language and your gross dishonesty in attributing to me what you think I think. You don't have a clue.
God is just and his judgments are fair and equitable. He holds to the justice - of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In other words he holds to proportionality.
And yet he went out of his way allegedly to disavow that claim by allegedly coming all the way UP to earth. Because your god creates billions of souls for the express purpose of torturing them for eternity your claims concerning his "justice" are bald faced lies.
The question then is whether or not - being tortured for ever is proportionate to sinning against God? If you can demonstrate that it is not proportionate - that your sin is not worthy of eternal punishment, then you may well have a point. But unless you can demonstrate it, then you have no right to call it evil. Your insinuation that God is evil is nothing less than spite.
The question is nothing like that, torturing someone for eternity is evil is a given. Creating someone for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity is the very essence of evil.
I don't insinuate anything, I state categorically that the god you believe in is the absolute essence of evil and I use your beliefs and your holy book as evidence in support of my declaration and you can't refute a single word because they are your beliefs.
-->
@disgusted
Nothing at all to do with my argument. My argument can be summed up as god's omniscience makes god evil.
Are you arguing god is evil or god doesn't exist?
-->
@disgusted
Why is it evil? It is completely just. Why would torturing someone in Hell for eternity be evil? God is not bound to the Geneva Convention you realise.
hahahahahaha very funny. It's not the torturing for eternity that I'm claiming is evil (even though it is) it's your god's decision to create billions of people for that specific person, that is what makes him evil. He knows all. hahahahaha
Ok that puts a different slant on it. How do you come to the conclusion that God has decided billions of people for that specific purpose? Chapters and verses would be nice - so we know that you aren't just conjecturing the same based on false logic. The fact that God knows that billions of people will be tortured - and indeed even for the sake of the argument that he planned it - does not ipso facto follow that it was his specific purpose. I accept for the sake of the argument that it could mean this - but I certainly don't agree that it the case. I can see other events in history that are the fallout of what is the specific purpose. For instance - God's purpose in relation to Job was particular and specific - but the fallout to his children was the indirect result of his purpose with Job. I am not implying that God did not ordain or even plan for their death - but their death was not the particular purpose - Job was. So what I am saying is that I see no evidence in the Scripture or even from any reasoning that you have put forward that God has created billions of people to be tortured for eternity specifically to torture them. That is your conjecture. But I reject it as any part of what I have read or understood.
People who have rejected God choose to do so of their own free will. God is eternal - hence his mercy is eternal but so are his punishments. The fact that you - a mere mortal think that punishment of any kind ought to be short as possible - is not the measure of evil.
Your god creates people with no chance to do anything but reject him, he sees them in hell before he creates them and puts them there for his sadistic pleasure. The rest of your gibberish I'll assume is a result of your failure to comprehend the English language and your gross dishonesty in attributing to me what you think I think. You don't have a clue.
I reject your reasoning. God created man with free will. the bible clearly puts there. All humans can call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Romans 10. God shows no favouritism. The fact that God sees them in Hell before hand - is neither here nor there. Every person who ends up in Hell deserves to be there - and to be tortured forever. You have not refuted this yet. I say even the people in heaven deserve to be in Hell and tortured for ever. God takes no pleasure in the punishment or the judgment of any person.
God is just and his judgments are fair and equitable. He holds to the justice - of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In other words he holds to proportionality.
And yet he went out of his way allegedly to disavow that claim by allegedly coming all the way UP to earth. Because your god creates billions of souls for the express purpose of torturing them for eternity your claims concerning his "justice" are bald faced lies.
That statement does not even make sense. Jesus came to this earth as an act of mercy. People who receive mercy do so because they don't deserve it. Anyone who comes to God and is forgiven - does so on the basis that they don't deserve it. It is not fair that they receive God's mercy. But it is mercy and grace. Again you have no evidence to support your absurd claims.
The question then is whether or not - being tortured for ever is proportionate to sinning against God? If you can demonstrate that it is not proportionate - that your sin is not worthy of eternal punishment, then you may well have a point. But unless you can demonstrate it, then you have no right to call it evil. Your insinuation that God is evil is nothing less than spite.
The question is nothing like that, torturing someone for eternity is evil is a given. Creating someone for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity is the very essence of evil.
I don't insinuate anything, I state categorically that the god you believe in is the absolute essence of evil and I use your beliefs and your holy book as evidence in support of my declaration and you can't refute a single word because they are your beliefs.
Of course it is the question. You don't like the question. It is not a given which is why we are having this discussion and why I asked you to back your claim - which you have just admitted you cant. Calling it a given is a copout which we both know. You need to demonstrate that it was God's sole intention - and I don't think it is possible. I have shown even on a very small scale that there are other scenarios. And given that God says what he does is good - I am prepared to start there and go forward. You on the other hand - need to slink around and try and find some reason to support your view. presently, your statements have no support and demonstrate a profound lack of depth.
-->
@Tradesecret
That's the theory of 'total depravity'.Every person who ends up in Hell deserves to be there - and to be tortured forever. You have not refuted this yet. I say even the people in heaven deserve to be in Hell and tortured for ever.
But it ignore the obvious fact that there are good people and bad people.
Theologians trying to solve the problem of evil came up with the concept of total depravity and then to make total depravity work they invented original sin which has the required effect of turning even good people into sinners.
I don't deny what you,Tradesecret, say makes a sort of logical sense in its own terms. But it is logic that applies to a fantasy world where there are omniscient gods and sin can be inherited from ancestors.
-->
@keithprosser
Every person who ends up in Hell deserves to be there - and to be tortured forever. You have not refuted this yet. I say even the people in heaven deserve to be in Hell and tortured for ever.
That's the theory of 'total depravity'.But it ignore the obvious fact that there are good people and bad people.Theologians trying to solve the problem of evil came up with the concept of total depravity and then to make total depravity work they invented original sin which has the required effect of turning even good people into sinners.I don't deny what you,Tradesecret, say makes a sort of logical sense in its own terms. But it is logic that applies to a fantasy world where there are omniscient gods and sin can be inherited from ancestors.
The question of good people and bad people is a subject all by itself. What makes a person good and what makes a person bad? After all, if God is good, how can an atheist be good if everything they do is resistant to God? I do not deny that atheists and others who are not Christians can do things which are good, but it is not our measure that counts surely? After all, if people want to go to heaven, then surely it has to be conceded that it is God's definition of good that matters? The Bible tells us that "all day God held out his hand for any to come to him, and no one not even one came." You and I both know that human nature is depraved. People might have the free will to do what they want - but do they have the free will to do what they ought? If a bank robber walked out of a bank and sees a cop standing there, what will he do? What ought he do? I suggest that what he ought to do is hand himself in. But what will he do? Run and try and escape. Why is that people slow down whenever they see a police officer? Why is it that Adam Smith - despite the fact that he was not a Christian, still note that it was people's self interest which was their ruling motivation? Smith, like the others - are depraved. Total depravity does not teach that people are as bad as they can possibly be - but rather that they are so tainted by sin that everything in their life is affected. Like a glass of water wherein someone drops a few drops of ink. Will we drink it? Hardly so, because these few drops have coloured the rest of the water. Yet it is not pure ink. Our depraved natures stop us from coming to God, we ought to get down on our knees and beg him for mercy. But our depravity refuses to do this. This is why sometimes I throw out the challenge to people to "become Christians all by themselves". I have never seen anyone do it - and I am prepared to stake my faith on it.
Still thanks for the feedback.
I'd call that the 'ptolmaic' approach. To preserve their initil assumption (earth centred circular motion) ptolmaic astronomers had to invent cycles within cycles, epicycles, deferents,equants etc etc...
To preserve their assumptions theologians invented 'total depravity', 'original sin', 'unconditional election' etc etc. Atheism is like copernicanism.
-->
@keithprosser
By theologians you mean John Calvin, who is a figure of the reformation in relation to the heretical Roman Catholic Church.
These "theologians" you like to reference that debate these things are all protestants I would imagine.
Over a thousand years before the reformation, these issues were ironed out by the church fathers and. ecumenical councils. The Church knows what it believes!
The west is run by lawyers who have to codify everything. Interestingly enough, I am pretty sure John Calvin was a lawyer!
-->
@Mopac
By theologians you mean John Calvin, who is a figure of the reformation in relation to the heretical Roman Catholic Church.These "theologians" you like to reference that debate these things are all protestants I would imagine.Over a thousand years before the reformation, these issues were ironed out by the church fathers and. ecumenical councils. The Church knows what it believes!The west is run by lawyers who have to codify everything. Interestingly enough, I am pretty sure John Calvin was a lawyer!
Yes, Calvin was a lawyer as was Martin Luther and as was Augustine. As was the Apostle Paul.
Tulip interestingly enough was the protestant document opposed to the Catholic church. It followed Augustine's position and took its lead from the early church father's wherein all of its position can be found. The Reformation - as its intent sounds - was to reform the Church closer to its original sense.
-->
@keithprosser
I'd call that the 'ptolmaic' approach. To preserve their initil assumption (earth centred circular motion) ptolmaic astronomers had to invent cycles within cycles, epicycles, deferents,equants etc etc...To preserve their assumptions theologians invented 'total depravity', 'original sin', 'unconditional election' etc etc. Atheism is like copernicanism.
You might be interested to know that the most accurate astronomer of the day around Copernicus was Tyche Brahe. He took neither the Copernicus or the Galileo view, but a quite astounding third position. Yet, his results were far more accurate than either the other two including his student the great Keppler.
Assumptions - exist in any worldview, including atheism. There is no getting away with assumption. I don't understand these doctrines to have been invented so far as they were uncovered. Like the doctrine of gravity. It was already there - it did not suddenly arise because Newton invented it. He simply explained what everyone already seemed to understand intuitively - that what goes up - must come down. The same can't be said for Galileo. His theory was quite profound in that it was not intuitive. Today we follow Galileo because we are told too; not because it is intuitive. We still get up in the morning and watch the sun rise. We still watch the sun go from one side of the sky to the other. We watch the sun go down. We however are prepared to accept that the earth goes around the sun and that we as a planet ourselves spin, even though we don't get motion sickness or don't land in a different spot when we jump - despite the fact that we much be travelling very fast. It simply is not intuitive. It is because we take a blind trust in our scientists. And I say that for the most part because 99% of people on this planet don't have the capacity to test his theories even a little bit. a very small percentage of people - scientists (priests) can test - and tell us to believe. Imagine the ridicule if we disbelieved?
But this is quite different to the theologians and to Newton who uncovered or explained what we all knew. People follow their own nature, we see this. Etc. Etc.
-->
@keithprosser
I'm arguing his god, he thinks it exists.
-->
@Tradesecret
Ok that puts a different slant on it. How do you come to the conclusion that God has decided billions of people for that specific purpose?
The argument I've been making since the beginning is a different slant, oh dear, it must be your inability with the English language or is it that you read what you want to see because you've been taught how to respond to those arguments even if they are not there. Once again I'll give you a new slant that I have been writing since the beginning. Your god sees them in hell before he creates them there is no other purpose for their creation.
I reject your reasoning. God created man with free will. the bible clearly puts there. All humans can call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Romans 10. God shows no favouritism. The fact that God sees them in Hell before hand - is neither here nor there. Every person who ends up in Hell deserves to be there - and to be tortured forever. You have not refuted this yet. I say even the people in heaven deserve to be in Hell and tortured for ever. God takes no pleasure in the punishment or the judgment of any person.
You can reject it till the cows come home but you can't refute it, all of your attempted distractions come to naught.God sees you in hell before he creates you can your much vaunted free will change that and prove your god wrong? It's neither here nor there that your god creates billions of people for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity. That is their purpose just as those who finish in heaven is their purpose because they don't deserve to be there, do they.
That statement does not even make sense. Jesus came to this earth as an act of mercy.
Allegedly Jesus came to turn the other cheek and to reject the eye for an eye and tooth for tooth. Which as usual makes this next quote a lie.
He holds to the justice - of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
Of course it is the question. You don't like the question. It is not a given which is why we are having this discussion and why I asked you to back your claim - which you have just admitted you cant. Calling it a given is a copout which we both know. You need to demonstrate that it was God's sole intention - and I don't think it is possible. I have shown even on a very small scale that there are other scenarios. And given that God says what he does is good - I am prepared to start there and go forward. You on the other hand - need to slink around and try and find some reason to support your view. presently, your statements have no support and demonstrate a profound lack of depth.
Once again you are confused regarding the topic under discussion. We are discussing your god's evil nature as demonstrated by his creation of billions of souls just so he can torture them for eternity. Now I've supported my arguments with the bible and your beliefs, see what you can do.
-->
@disgusted
Ok that puts a different slant on it. How do you come to the conclusion that God has decided billions of people for that specific purpose?
The argument I've been making since the beginning is a different slant, oh dear, it must be your inability with the English language or is it that you read what you want to see because you've been taught how to respond to those arguments even if they are not there. Once again I'll give you a new slant that I have been writing since the beginning. Your god sees them in hell before he creates them there is no other purpose for their creation.
Sorry. I accept God sees them in Hell before he creates them. This is hidden will. His revealed will however clearly is that these people have free will and that they choose themselves to reject God, thereby ending up in Hell. I have talked before about first and second causes. You seem to find that a brain strain. Try and think of an author like Tolkien who wrote Lord of the Rings. The entire story is written and planned and executed by Tolkien. Millions of people die within its pages. Each individual in the novel has free will and yet each person is completely directed by Tolkien. Is Tolkien evil because any of his minions kills others? No he is not. The murderer in the novel is the evil one. True it is not a perfect analogy. Yet the same picture of first and second causes is in effect. Just as the author of a book is separate from the character in the novel so is God from his creation. I happen to take the view that all God does is to bring glory to his name. That is always his first and primary purpose. Remember God is not dependant upon humanity. He does not need humanity. That he deals graciously and mercifully with humanity is astonishing and yet it is perfectly consistent with his character.
I reject your reasoning. God created man with free will. the bible clearly puts there. All humans can call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Romans 10. God shows no favouritism. The fact that God sees them in Hell before hand - is neither here nor there. Every person who ends up in Hell deserves to be there - and to be tortured forever. You have not refuted this yet. I say even the people in heaven deserve to be in Hell and tortured for ever. God takes no pleasure in the punishment or the judgment of any person.
You can reject it till the cows come home but you can't refute it, all of your attempted distractions come to naught.God sees you in hell before he creates you can your much vaunted free will change that and prove your god wrong? It's neither here nor there that your god creates billions of people for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity. That is their purpose just as those who finish in heaven is their purpose because they don't deserve to be there, do they.
It seems you have a very high opinion of humanity. and that is probably a good thing. But you don't seem to have a very accurate picture of God at all. It is ironic how you are happy to selectively choose things about God and yet deny other attributes about him. In fact you even attribute things to him that he says are not true. In doing so the god you talk about is not the god of the bible. You are the one asserting that God has no other purpose - you have yet to prove this. Repeating the same statement is not proof. Perhaps that is how you prove things in your mind - but it wont hold water anywhere else. I asked you for proof texts - or a verse. Gee even an argument might be nice. I have at least provided alternative theories - including the one that everything God does is for his own glory. I honestly cannot refute an argument that has not been presented. I am waiting for that to occur.
That statement does not even make sense. Jesus came to this earth as an act of mercy.
Allegedly Jesus came to turn the other cheek and to reject the eye for an eye and tooth for tooth. Which as usual makes this next quote a lie.
He holds to the justice - of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
Jesus never came to reject an eye for an eye. He rejected the prevailing view and interpretation at the time by the Jews which was quite different to its OT usage. Jesus is in agreement with the law of proportionality. He was opposed to people taking the law into their own hands which is what was happening in his time.
Of course it is the question. You don't like the question. It is not a given which is why we are having this discussion and why I asked you to back your claim - which you have just admitted you cant. Calling it a given is a copout which we both know. You need to demonstrate that it was God's sole intention - and I don't think it is possible. I have shown even on a very small scale that there are other scenarios. And given that God says what he does is good - I am prepared to start there and go forward. You on the other hand - need to slink around and try and find some reason to support your view. presently, your statements have no support and demonstrate a profound lack of depth.
Once again you are confused regarding the topic under discussion. We are discussing your god's evil nature as demonstrated by his creation of billions of souls just so he can torture them for eternity. Now I've supported my arguments with the bible and your beliefs, see what you can do.
what arguments from the bible? Are you blind or just plain lying? Repeat for me from the posts. This will be fun.
-->
@Tradesecret
what arguments from the bible?
Your god sees them in hell before he creates them
God sees you in hell before he creates you can your much vaunted free will change that and prove your god wrong? I
Allegedly Jesus came to turn the other cheek and to reject the eye for an eye and tooth for tooth
We are discussing your god's evil nature as demonstrated by his creation of billions of souls just so he can torture them for eternity
This is what your bible teaches, the fact that you don't understand this is demonstrated by this lie.
Jesus never came to reject an eye for an eye
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't blame the reformation at all for breaking away from Rome.
However, the next step for the post reformation churches is to find their way back to Orthodox Catholicism, because this is The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Martin Luther was a priest and Augustine was a Bishop. They weren't lawyers.
-->
@Mopac
Martin Luther trained as a lawyer. Augustine worked in politics as a lawyer before becoming a priest.
If Orthodox Christianity would reject works as a means of salvation and stop praying / therefore worshiping dead saints, and stop idolatry then perhaps they might start to trust in Jesus as their Lord and their Saviour. Then perhaps we might be able to have some unity in worship.
I noted a while ago that an orthodox priest would come and have communion at our church. You twisted the story by saying that we would accept them as part of the church, yet the Orthodox church would not accept us. What you failed to comment on what that this priest accepted our communion as holy and worshiped with us. This is quite contrary to how you have explained in the past.
I for example would never actually worship in a Roman Catholic church as I would not consider it true worship. Even though I would accept Catholics to come and worship with us. This is because the table that the Catholic church holds out is superstitious - not because there are not Christians within the church. But for your priest to come to my church - is an acknowledgement that our church is a true church.
-->
@Tradesecret
Fancy believing a lawyer.
A godist decrying superstition is funnier than SNL.
One person attending your church makes your church the true church. Oh how desperate.
-->
@disgusted
Why would you not believe a lawyer? Christians are not in principle superstitious - in fact we often go to great lengths to ensure people give up their superstitions.
We don't believe in magic or manipulation. Magic and deceit with smoke and daggers are the work and practise of the non-godly.
I never said one man attending our church makes its the real church. I said that one of Mopac's priests attended our church and participated within our service - hence declaring that he considered our church to be in communion with his and therefore part of the universal church of God - which is the true church.
-->
@Tradesecret
If Orthodox Christianity would reject works as a means of salvation and stop praying / therefore worshiping dead saints, and stop idolatry then perhaps they might start to trust in Jesus as their Lord and their Saviour. Then perhaps we might be able to have some unity in worship.
We do not believe that works save, neither do we worship saints. We certainly do neither of these things. And we certainly do accept Jesus as our Lord and savior.
Prayer is an integral part of being a Christian, we certainly couldn't stop doing that. And these "dead" saints are alive in Christ, as you will be too if you depart in grace.
I noted a while ago that an orthodox priest would come and have communion at our church. You twisted the story by saying that we would accept them as part of the church, yet the Orthodox church would not accept us. What you failed to comment on what that this priest accepted our communion as holy and worshiped with us. This is quite contrary to how you have explained in the past.
That Orthodox Priest would be in error. I would be surprised if the bishop would condone such a thing.
You are right, we do not practice open communion, and while we can do many other things with heterodox, the eucharist is not one of those things.
I for example would never actually worship in a Roman Catholic church as I would not consider it true worship. Even though I would accept Catholics to come and worship with us. This is because the table that the Catholic church holds out is superstitious - not because there are not Christians within the church. But for your priest to come to my church - is an acknowledgement that our church is a true church.
The actions of one priest who is obviously in error does not represent The Church. If a church is not with us, it isn't the church.
When you say that the table that the Catholic Church holds out is superstitious, what do you mean?
-->
@Mopac
If Orthodox Christianity would reject works as a means of salvation and stop praying / therefore worshiping dead saints, and stop idolatry then perhaps they might start to trust in Jesus as their Lord and their Saviour. Then perhaps we might be able to have some unity in worship.
We do not believe that works save, neither do we worship saints. We certainly do neither of these things. And we certainly do accept Jesus as our Lord and savior.
The Orthodox Church teaches like the Catholic church a version of free will that is incompatible with faith.
Prayer is an integral part of being a Christian, we certainly couldn't stop doing that. And these "dead" saints are alive in Christ, as you will be too if you depart in grace.
You say you don't worship Saints - but you treat them as though they were god. Two of the attributes that belong to God is that he alone is omniscient and omnipresent . Yet, you pray to the Saints, not just like they are alive in Christ, but as though they have the ability to hear your prayers at the same time as they hear the prayers of thousands of other Orthodox people at the same time. The Roman Catholics do the same with Mary.
but Mary like any of the saints has one pair of ears in their bodies. They have not become like God and can hear many people at once saying a multitude of things at the same time. And why would anyone want to pray to the Saints when they can go directly to our Father in heaven? It is such a con. We have one mediator - Jesus. Yet you and the Roman Catholics have oodles of mediators. Prayer is a form of worship. Praying to the saints is worshiping them and giving them the glory that belongs to God alone. Prayer is not just talking to God - it is demonstrating our total dependence upon God for all that we are and we do. By praying to the Saints, you demonstrate none of this towards God - but towards your favourite saint. Idolatry in its purest form. Where in the bible are we ever commanded to pray to the saints or to anyone but God? Nowhere, so you will refer to church tradition, how convenient?
I noted a while ago that an orthodox priest would come and have communion at our church. You twisted the story by saying that we would accept them as part of the church, yet the Orthodox church would not accept us. What you failed to comment on what that this priest accepted our communion as holy and worshiped with us. This is quite contrary to how you have explained in the past.
That Orthodox Priest would be in error. I would be surprised if the bishop would condone such a thing.
You are right, we do not practice open communion, and while we can do many other things with heterodox, the eucharist is not one of those things.
That may well be the case. But it occurred and he did not shrink from it. He never conveyed to me what his bishop thought of it. I think I will ask him.
I for example would never actually worship in a Roman Catholic church as I would not consider it true worship. Even though I would accept Catholics to come and worship with us. This is because the table that the Catholic church holds out is superstitious - not because there are not Christians within the church. But for your priest to come to my church - is an acknowledgement that our church is a true church.
The actions of one priest who is obviously in error does not represent The Church. If a church is not with us, it isn't the church.
When you say that the table that the Catholic Church holds out is superstitious, what do you mean?
Again I cannot disagree with you about the actions of one priest. I do not agree that our church is not the church, though. We are a church which upholds the name of Jesus as Lord and God and we will not resile from that just because you take the view that we are not Christians.
As for the Catholic Church, I hold that it is superstitious in its teaching that the bread and the wine ACTUALLY becomes the literal body of Christ. Not only is this absurdity in the least, but it promotes the idea that Jesus is crucified over and over again - which contradicts the Letter to the Hebrews and says that his death was not final in its time. It also contradicts the notion that Jesus is the only mediator with each of the priests becoming a mediator. Jesus died once for all - and has never been sacrificed again. The Catholic church is in error in this teaching. The Presbyterian church holds to the biblical view that the table is a covenantal meal with Christ and that the bread and the wine spiritually become Christ - so that his people can feed on him spiritually. In communion we are raised with Christ into heaven. Communion therefore has power both symbolically and spiritually. Yet it is not a superstitious re-enactment of Christ's crucifixion. This is in contrast to those churches who follow Zwingli's teaching that the table of the Lord is merely a reminder or a commemoration of Jesus' death where there is no power. Communion is a grace of God that communicates his grace to his believers. This as I said above is a covenantal meal.
The Orthodox Church teaches like the Catholic church a version of free will that is incompatible with faith
I honestly can't see how that is true, and even find this statement ludicrous.
On praying to saints, it is more accurate to say they pray with us. Have you ever prayed for someone? Has someone ever prayed for you? It isn't much different.
We certainly accept that Jesus is the one mediator. Everyone in the church prays for everyone else. The saints are still praying with us. We here on Earth are the church militant. The ones who have passed over are the church triumphant. They are the cloud of witnesses.
I hold that it is superstitious in its teaching that the bread and the wine ACTUALLY becomes the literal body of Christ. Not only is this absurdity in the least, but it promotes the idea that Jesus is crucified over and over again
Not only do the earliest Church fathers and saints insist that this is the case, but not accepting this is the surely an error, as even St. Paul wrote "For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body."
And earlier in the same epistle he writes "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"
The eucharist is not a crucifiction of Jesus.
I do not agree that our church is not the church, though. We are a church which upholds the name of Jesus as Lord and God and we will not resile from that just because you take the view that we are not Christians
There is One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
All the historical heretics said they were Christian too, you know. But they don't share the faith of The Church, so how can they be?
-->
@Tradesecret
Why would you not believe a lawyer? Christians are not in principle superstitious - in fact we often go to great lengths to ensure people give up their superstitions.
Because they are liars. Belief in the supernatural is superstition
We don't believe in magic or manipulation. Magic and deceit with smoke and daggers are the work and practise of the non-godly.
Woohoo, no magic in the bible, much.
I never said one man attending our church makes its the real church. I said that one of Mopac's priests attended our church and participated within our service - hence declaring that he considered our church to be in communion with his and therefore part of the universal church of God - which is the true church.
Wanna bet
But for your priest to come to my church - is an acknowledgement that our church is a true church.
-->
@Tradesecret
Was he human?Jesus died once for all - and has never been sacrificed again
-->
@disgusted
That was a good pickup. When I wrote that - I wondered whether you would see it and drop in.
Cudos to you.
Of course - the context is quite telling.
And Jesus was human. And Jesus was God. And Jesus died. And Jesus rose from the dead. And Jesus lives today. And Jesus rules from his throne in heaven.
-->
@Tradesecret
God is also our Father. We are his children. We have a relationship. This means talking to each other.
This is not intercessory prayer. This is conversation as described, which is entirely different and probably has some inherent theraputic value, not because god's there, but because we can gain a perspective from meditation on a subject. The difference between your children and you talking, and people and god talking, well, it's more than one, and all signficant. Two people can hear you say the same thing at the exact same moment, for example. Your one child might hear you say something to another child and both could verify what was said.
In the bible, God tells us to pray to him. He also tells us to ask him for things. There is a sense of comfort too when we do seek his advice - a knowledge that he knows that we have not forgotten to ask him. Prayer of course is the ultimate sense of dependency upon someone else
I know that he tells you to pray. Why, is the question, if he has a plan, would he encourage you to, I don't know, pray for your sick dad to recover if he knew his plan was to kill him anyway? Doesn't that seem cruel? And you nailed the part about dependency, I agree.
(Actually he did create a world without sin and where everyone did what was good, yet man's first decision - was to do evil)
Did he not know that was going to happen? Are you saying man invented something god didn't (evil)?
-->
@Tradesecret
And there is the human sacrifice you denied earlier. No kudos for lying. And what we see around us is the result of his rule? Oh dear.