True Christianity?
-
The funny thing is:Originally posted by maven2:I'm not out to get anything from my belief as a Christian. I don't need any of the "benefits" or "bonuses". Being a Christian is my spiritual and emotional response to a love that is freely given and the knowledge of God.
Many pple believe we gain "merit" when we get pple to church. -
Not over generalisation. Imagine again: if there was no conquests, no zealous missionaries, no Marco Polos, no crusaders, no travellers, no traders, no colonalists, will you hear of Christ and became Christian???Originally posted by maven2:Over-generalisation.
I became Christian without anyone convincing me to be one.
I was anti-Christian and one day became Christian cuz I suddenly understood the bible passages I quoted often to whack unarmed Christians.
If you still have problem understanding my question, imagine an isolated tribe lving deep in south amercian rainforest, not accessible to modern adventurers, opportunists and missionaries - would they have heard of Christ and one of them suddenly became Christian though there was no preacher or bible available, and certainly no convincing?
Let me point where your flawed thinking is: just becuase no one had taken you to church or read the bible to you, doesn't mean you didn't know or heard of Christ and Christianity, and that you would not gravitate towards and embrace that religion.
Also, reading the bible doesn't mean you understood. There are alot of christians out there learning bible verses by heart and quoting them left and right. How should I know? I was one of them! To me, I don't think you understood the subtleness and the hidden agenda in the bible passages. I am not saying that everything there is irrelevant or immoral. But to just blindly quote them for every situation is like saying a dictionary has the meaning of every word in our vocabulary!
Because I found inconsistencies and even ridiculous passages in the bible that I reject it as the gospel truth! The bible is not one book from one author and an original source. It it a compilation of works before and after Christ, added, amended, fictionalised, deleted, selected by the 'authority' to be inclusive or rejected if the authority deemed not what they liked! -
I assure you I am not one of those bible-thumping Christians.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Not over generalisation. Imagine again: if there was no conquests, no zealous missionaries, no Marco Polos, no crusaders, no travellers, no traders, no colonalists, will you hear of Christ and became Christian???
If you still have problem understanding my question, imagine an isolated tribe lving deep in south amercian rainforest, not accessible to modern adventurers, opportunists and missionaries - would they have heard of Christ and one of them suddenly became Christian though there was no preacher or bible available, and certainly no convincing?
Let me point where your flawed thinking is: just becuase no one had taken you to church or read the bible to you, doesn't mean you didn't know or heard of Christ and Christianity, and that you would not gravitate towards and embrace that religion.
Also, reading the bible doesn't mean you understood. There are alot of christians out there learning bible verses by heart and quoting them left and right. How should I know? I was one of them! To me, I don't think you understood the subtleness and the hidden agenda in the bible passages. I am not saying that everything there is irrelevant or immoral. But to just blindly quote them for every situation is like saying a dictionary has the meaning of every word in our vocabulary!
Because I found inconsistencies and even ridiculous passages in the bible that I reject it as the gospel truth! The bible is not one book from one author and an original source. It it a compilation of works before and after Christ, added, amended, fictionalised, deleted, selected by the 'authority' to be inclusive or rejected if the authority deemed not what they liked!
Let me show you where you assumed about my flaws: The teaching in my Church (it was my conviction before i knew the Church taught it) is that not only all who have heard of the Gospels and go to Church are Christians.
If there were people living in the remotest parts of the world, having never heard of the Gospels, if they honestly, in their genuine desire to find God, follow all the laws written in the fabric of their heart, they're Christians too.
The Word Christian today is used to refer to an exclusivist Club. But as early as at least 150AD, as St Justin Matyr says that the abovementioned are Christians by the then-accepted definition of a Christian.
Something my Church still teaches.
The only exception to the teaching is if a person knowingly denies God or knowingly twists the truth for his own profitable purposes. -
Originally posted by maven2:I assure you I am not one of those bible-thumping Christians.
Let me show you where you assumed about my flaws: The teaching in my Church (it was my conviction before i knew the Church taught it) is that not only all who have heard of the Gospels and go to Church are Christians.
If there were people living in the remotest parts of the world, having never heard of the Gospels, if they honestly, in their genuine desire to find God, follow all the laws written in the fabric of their heart, they're Christians too.
I see the hidden agenda here which you don't. This is a statement to make it all-inclusive regardless of where or wherever people are and who had not heard of Christ. I use this example just to counter your 'being not convince by anyone'.
But your using of this verse is to rope everyone into the fold, which you know is not correct. That is what I meant by hidden agenda. I would have use this verse like you do once a upon a time - to give the impression that Christianity is for all! But because I saw hidden agenda, I realised that is not the correct approach.
The Word Christian today is used to refer to an exclusivist Club. But as early as at least 150AD, as St Justin Matyr says that the abovementioned are Christians by the then-accepted definition of a Christian.
Whether exclusive or inclusive, it is the same to me. If you say you r a christian, then though they are many kinds of christian, the general public would take it as one who follows the teachings of Christ regardless of the various doctrine or dogmas.
Something my Church still teaches.
The only exception to the teaching is if a person knowingly denies God or knowingly twists the truth for his own profitable purposes.
Back to compulsory believe in God. Which God? If the isolated tribe believe in its own God (not the Christian God), and certainly were genuine in seeking god, are they Christians? -
Maven,
Even an atheist can see what are the problems created when u preached a Christianity of all-inclusiveness.
This is the 2nd time I am agreeing with parts of what Mr. Earth writes.
[/b]Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Originally posted by maven2:
[b]
I assure you I am not one of those bible-thumping Christians.
Let me show you where you assumed about my flaws: The teaching in my Church (it was my conviction before i knew the Church taught it) is that not only all who have heard of the Gospels and go to Church are Christians.
If there were people living in the remotest parts of the world, having never heard of the Gospels, if they honestly, in their genuine desire to find God, follow all the laws written in the fabric of their heart, they're Christians too.
I see the hidden agenda here which you don't. This is a statement to make it all-inclusive regardless of where or wherever people are and who had not heard of Christ. I use this example just to counter your 'being not convince by anyone'.
But your using of this verse is to rope everyone into the fold, which you know is not correct. That is what I meant by hidden agenda. I would have use this verse like you do once a upon a time - to give the impression that Christianity is for all! But because I saw hidden agenda, I realised that is not the correct approach.
The Word Christian today is used to refer to an exclusivist Club. But as early as at least 150AD, as St Justin Matyr says that the abovementioned are Christians by the then-accepted definition of a Christian.
Whether exclusive or inclusive, it is the same to me. If you say you r a christian, then though they are many kinds of christian, the general public would take it as one who follows the teachings of Christ regardless of the various doctrine or dogmas.
Something my Church still teaches.
The only exception to the teaching is if a person knowingly denies God or knowingly twists the truth for his own profitable purposes.
Back to compulsory believe in God. Which God? If the isolated tribe believe in its own God (not the Christian God), and certainly were genuine in seeking god, are they Christians? -
The only reason why there "seems" to be a hidden agenda is because we use the terms "Christians". If we ceased using this term, there is no agenda.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
The term "Christian" is understood by many as those who follow Christ's teachings.
The term "Christian" as used by some of the earlier Church Fathers referred to all who were saved through Christ.
And as I said earlier a person doesn't need to know Christ to be saved through Him.
If they honestly, for no self-seeking purposes, believed in God, yes they are "Christians" by the above definition.
Back to compulsory believe in God. Which God? If the isolated tribe believe in its own God (not the Christian God), and certainly were genuine in seeking god, are they Christians?
There is only One God. And all who genuinely seek God will find the one same God. They may know him by different names, according to their own tribe. And they may not know him fully. But its the one same God they are believing in. -
I'm withdrawing myself from the thread as while there are some who are discussing, there are others only interested in pushing their understanding as "gospel truth"
-
Then Muslims and Jews are also Christians ..Originally posted by maven2:If they honestly, for no self-seeking purposes, believed in God, yes they are "Christians" by the above definition.
There is only One God. And all who genuinely seek God will find the one same God. They may know him by different names, according to their own tribe. And they may not know him fully. But its the one same God they are believing in.
I dunno Taoists counted or not.
-
Then why not continue with the "some" who are discussing?Originally posted by maven2:I'm withdrawing myself from the thread as while there are some who are discussing, there are others only interested in pushing their understanding as "gospel truth"
-
I think the Vatican II documents refer to them as our "brethren". I'll find the actual excerpts.Originally posted by Icemoon:Then Muslims and Jews are also Christians ..
I dunno Taoists counted or not. -
Hmmm. If it's wantedOriginally posted by Icemoon:Then why not continue with the "some" who are discussing? 
-
Your cover has been exposed.Originally posted by maven2:If they honestly, for no self-seeking purposes, believed in God, yes they are "Christians" by the above definition.
There is only One God. And all who genuinely seek God will find the one same God. They may know him by different names, according to their own tribe. And they may not know him fully. But its the one same God they are believing in.
U are just a open-theist or a New Ager.
Not Catholic or Christian u have claimed. -
The problem is before Vatican II, you won't find such a kind description. Jewish-Christian relations have improved since the days of Justin Martyr and others who viewed the Jews as dunno what .. rejects?Originally posted by maven2:I think the Vatican II documents refer to them as our "brethren". I'll find the actual excerpts.
Certain Catholics in the past elevated *their* understanding of God in Christ above the God that you have put across. So they viewed the Jews not as brethens, but people very much outside the circle and hence targeted for conversion. Forced conversion, to be accurate. -
He denied all your labels.Originally posted by laoda99:Your cover has been exposed.
U are just a open-theist or a New Ager.
Not Catholic or Christian u have claimed.
He is not Protestant Christian like you. Whether he is a Catholic, we should let the Catholics here judge. -
So that was the premise and that was THE problem. The One God who created christians, muslims, hindus, jews, and cause them to kill, hate, quarrel with one another is no different from a father who cause his children to kill, hate and quarrel with one another over his property!Originally posted by maven2:If they honestly, for no self-seeking purposes, believed in God, yes they are "Christians" by the above definition.
There is only One God. And all who genuinely seek God will find the one same God. They may know him by different names, according to their own tribe. And they may not know him fully. But its the one same God they are believing in. -
I'd liken it more to the Father who dotes on his children but they get influenced all the same by their want to fit in with the rest of the world. Ensnared by the bad influences all around them, they quarrel with one another and within the family for the family assets. What they do not know is that the Father still owns the assets and he has the right not to give it to anyone of them. Yet being the loving Father, he waits in patience and love and tries to correct them time and again because he really wants them to inherit his wealth.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:So that was the premise and that was THE problem. The One God who created christians, muslims, hindus, jews, and cause them to kill, hate, quarrel with one another is no different from a father who cause his children to kill, hate and quarrel with one another over his property!
But if at the end of it all, they break faith and go their own ways and are waylaid by robbers and thieves, that will be their own undoing. The Father, powerful as he is, does not force them to acknowledge him with force, but instead offers them full pardon and forgiveness if at any point of time, they'd only return to his house. A prodigal son, is no less a son.
The Father longs for his children who have gone wide and astray. But his love prevents him from restricting them their own right. Torn by his love, he pines for them unceasingly and at every opportunity to let them know that he still loves them and his house is safe from all the dangers of the world.
Some return after a weary journey. Some don't. And the perfect love suffers the pain of death for each one of his children who didn't make it, for all eternity.
When heaven and earth fades, at the end of time, while there is triumphant jubilation among all creation, pain remains, taken fully unto his own afflicted soul, a necessary suffering as his labour for love. -
This is one thing I've yet to understand. The official teachings of the Church, or at least the dogmatic teachings of the Church has always placed them as special people of God.Originally posted by Icemoon:The problem is before Vatican II, you won't find such a kind description. Jewish-Christian relations have improved since the days of Justin Martyr and others who viewed the Jews as dunno what .. rejects?
Certain Catholics in the past elevated *their* understanding of God in Christ above the God that you have put across. So they viewed the Jews not as brethens, but people very much outside the circle and hence targeted for conversion. Forced conversion, to be accurate.
For some reason, certain members of the clergy, and in no small capacity, chose to make them target boards of hatred. I'm suspecting there was a lot more politics in play than religious motivation. -
Actually, i've read a couple of books on salvation outsid the Catholic Church. It's been richly depicted and tackles the issue on:Originally posted by Icemoon:He denied all your labels.
He is not Protestant Christian like you. Whether he is a Catholic, we should let the Catholics here judge.
1. Our Protestant brothers.
2. The Jewish relationship with us.
This aspect is pretty interesting. for those not acquainted, before Vatican II, the Catholic church actually prayed for the forgiveness of the Jews.
3. The issue on people that have not heard the Gospel. Do they get salvation?
i might be mistaken or not up-to-date (so please correct me if i misrepresent the Catholic Church). But from my own readings, i dun think that there is an official stance on this issue. however, most aspects of what maven brought up isn't heresy. or at least i don't think so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, i think Icey brought up something about the attractiveness of Chrsitianity. I think i would like to share my personal convictions on the specialness of the Catholic church. To put our focus on salvation seems slightly counter-intuitive to me.
Firstly, i was and am a sinner - undeserving of salvation. But God in his Love, sent his son to die for our sins, so that we may rise together with him in becoming a new creation. To me it's a privilege. Something that no amount of works can achieve.
What then differentiates the Cathoic church? the Sacraments. partaking in the Eucharist, the Mass- it's solemnity and sacredness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the incoherent flow of ideas. i think my flu medicine is kicking in.
to laoda: Heaven and Hell exist in Catholicism; and to your disapproval, so does purgatory (Dun cringe). there's no argument to that. And if you reject Christ, eternal damnation will happen. What follows however.. is the nature of these places.
Is Hell a place of eternal damnnation? or just a place void of God's Love? In the latter case, some would say that it is worse than the former.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and laoda, what is your idea of hell? i really would like to hear more from you -
Originally posted by ben1xy:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, i think Icey brought up something about the attractiveness of Chrsitianity. I think i would like to share my personal convictions on the specialness of the Catholic church. To put our focus on salvation seems slightly counter-intuitive to me.
Firstly, i was and am a sinner - undeserving of salvation. But God in his Love, sent his son to die for our sins, so that we may rise together with him in becoming a new creation. To me it's a privilege. Something that no amount of works can achieve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amen. -
Most aspects? You know why? Becoz he is mixing half-truths together, and he even claim you don't even need Christ to be saved! And he dun believe in eternal damnation, tat's why he is not afraid of adding his own intepretation!Originally posted by ben1xy:however, most aspects of what maven brought up isn't heresy. or at least i don't think so.
to laoda: Heaven and Hell exist in Catholicism; and to your disapproval, so does purgatory (Dun cringe). there's no argument to that. And if you reject Christ, eternal damnation will happen. What follows however.. is the nature of these places.
Is Hell a place of eternal damnnation? or just a place void of God's Love? In the latter case, some would say that it is worse than the former.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and laoda, what is your idea of hell? i really would like to hear more from you
I would like to know ur concept of Hell first. Mebbe in PM. -
The "special people of God" is just a form of lip service because the Old Testament said so.Originally posted by maven2:This is one thing I've yet to understand. The official teachings of the Church, or at least the dogmatic teachings of the Church has always placed them as special people of God.
For some reason, certain members of the clergy, and in no small capacity, chose to make them target boards of hatred. I'm suspecting there was a lot more politics in play than religious motivation.
I think the Church has seen them, until recently, as rejects. People whom God has rejected and *unless* they believe in Christ, they will not be saved.
Your favourite Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyon were fathers of replacement/displacement theology. -
No la, to be fair, he never say you don't need Christ to be saved. He is just re-defining what it means to need Christ to be saved.Originally posted by laoda99:Most aspects? You know why? Becoz he is mixing half-truths together, and he even claim you don't even need Christ to be saved! And he dun believe in eternal damnation, tat's why he is not afraid of adding his own intepretation! -
actually what he is saying pertains to people that has never heard the gospel message. And the people that lived before Christ, etc. There are actually a lot of works pertaining to this area of theology. With that being said, do i agree with Maven totally? i am yet undecided. I remember once using his line of argument when i was talking to a seminarian friend. The discussion went deeper than that actually. we were discussing the issue of suicide. And whether a person committing suicide would be punished with eternal damnnation. It flowed something along the lines of 'it depends on circumstances' where a person having depression has no power over his choice of death very much like a person having HIV has no power over his illness too. In the same way, when a person lives in areas where the Gospel has not been preached, and where he is not offered the choice to turn to God. What will happen to him? It then followed to the people who grew up Buddhist. Kind people who pursue their religion but due to conditioning would not have any chance of turning to God. Do these people have a free choice? it's up to debates too. In our discussion, we discussed about the nature of God. Omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. Yet, the central character of God is Love. or at least to me it is. If God is Characterized by Love, it is interesting to think whether he will give them a 2nd chance. But before anyone labels me as a heretic. These are just my sincere passing thoughts and i understanding that faith and works that flows from that faith is what marks my salvation. But then again, i am privileged. i had the fortunes of being born to Catholic parents who incalcate in me Catholic values since a young age.Originally posted by laoda99:Most aspects? You know why? Becoz he is mixing half-truths together, and he even claim you don't even need Christ to be saved! And he dun believe in eternal damnation, tat's why he is not afraid of adding his own intepretation!
I would like to know ur concept of Hell first. Mebbe in PM.
As for my concept of hell. I was quite swayed by the views of the late Fulton Sheen where he describes it as a place devoid of God's love. And in many cases, it is not God that damns us there. But rather it's the people that do not have the faith or face to face God that condemns themself to that place. But laoda, please understand that these are just personal thoughts. And they are not representative of the stance of the Catholic Church. I am still journeying like you are. and views change. But as long as your foundation doesn't get too much shaken and your faith in Christ remains, i think by all measures, everything will be fine.
-
and laoda, what are your views on hell? i would like to hear them
-
Here's mine just to add to topic:Originally posted by ben1xy:and laoda, what are your views on hell? i would like to hear them
Life is Hell, Death is Heaven.