one big happy christian church
I suppose their are many who still dream of one big happy Christian church; I don’t. John defined the test for a good Christian leaders in 1 John 1-5, especially 1 John 4:1-3. If you want to defer to a pope, that is your perogative. On the other hand, even though my authority may be weak, not deferring to a pope is my perogative.
Although we can’t expect much from someone who doesn’t know their their from there, and clearly can’t spell prerogative, Citizen Tom still brings up an interesting point on our good friend SOM’s excellent post, “Some Challenges Presented by Modern Religion“.
The vision created by the writers of the Bible was clearly that the Christian church be united:
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. (1 Cor 1:11)
Furthermore, the character Jesus clearly states that the church (not plural) will stem from Peter, who went on to establish this church (not plural) in Rome:
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18)
So I find it curious that any Christians think they can practice their faith outside of the Roman Catholic Church. If you believe the Bible is the literal word of the god God, and the Bible states there should be only one church, how could you believe that the first 1500 years were wrong? How could you join a church with only 500 years or less of history? Surely those who follow protestant faiths are suggesting that the gates of Hades overcame the Catholic Church. Jesus would not approve.
The Catholic Church is quite sure it is the only True Christian faith, although most of them are learning to be less adamant about this claim than they were in the Middle Ages.
There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)
We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302)
Now, although you may not know this, I am not a Christian, so this problem doesn’t actually affect me. But I do think I should do the decent thing and help out all those crazy Protestants out there. If you truly believe what is written in the Bible, you need to join the Catholic Church. If you think that the Catholic Church isn’t doing something (or anything) correctly, you need to reform it from within – as members of the one true Church of your god that you believe Jesus set up through Peter. Otherwise, you are contradicting the words attributed to character Jesus, by avoiding the church that Peter set up, and by contributing to the fractious and damaging (for your religion) existence of 42,000 Christian denominations, who are clearly not perfectly united in mind and thought.
As for Citizen Tom: shame on you for not dreaming the dream.
SOM is your “good friend”? That’s scary –! And far TMI! Leave me with my illusions of you, please!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Must be post-partum related – hopefully, you’ll get better. I prescribe plenty of bed-rest and a good therapist, but that’s your PRErogative —
LikeLike
Oh come on! You know I’m making sense. Clearly stage two of the plan is pointing out that Catholicism is nonsense.
LikeLike
I was referring to your ‘SOM is my friend’ comment – I’m trying to find excuses for that – post-partum depression, temporary insanity, ANYthing —
LikeLike
You’re right, he can be vile at times. But he’s said some utterly hilarious things! I’ve lurked on a few Christian sites where only Christians comment and you get spit-your-coffee out comments from SOM.
LikeLike
I had no idea there was a second “R” in prerogative. Hey, if the spell checker doesn’t catch it (as it didn’t) then no one can be held accountable. Fortunately I’m aware of the difference between “their” and “there,” but yesterday I screwed up “know” and “no” while posting a comment in a hurry. If one were to surmise it means I’m a little less smart because I was a catholic for 99.9% of my life…well, hey, they might have a point. 😀
Violet, this post is a very compelling argument in support of the catholic church, which I know you hold a deep love for. Have you considered auditioning for Pope? You so cleverly explained things by using convincing biblical scripture (*cough*) you should be in the running for the next Pope after Francis. Don’t waste your time as the future Pope with beautiful scriptural supports for the catholic church though. They don’t do that. They do this: “It is so because I said so.”
(By the way, Pope Francis is taking major heat for saying non-catholics will be saved, and all the conservative catholics I know think he’s single handedly destroying catholicism and is responsible for the ruin of the world.)
As to the substance of your argument, why yes, according to the bible all christians should unite under the fine catholic church or be thrown into The Lake of Fire.
I’m sure even the protestants would agree with the *bible*.
LikeLike
“Have you considered auditioning for Pope?” Excellent idea! I know I’d make a splendid job of it.
“all the conservative catholics I know think he’s single handedly destroying catholicism” Oh I know! I love following blogs like that. They track the destruction of the Catholic Church from the first mass not held in Latin – was that in the 1960s? It’s great fun.
Do you think some appalled Protestants will turn up to comment? This could be so much fun if they all join in …
LikeLike
I’ve been anxiously awaiting the protestants and looking forward to the fireworks….they seem to be a little slow in their outrage today.
PS You’d have my vote for Pope! Oh wait, I don’t get a vote.
LikeLike
I am a protestant and I disagree. The church Jesus was talking about was each of us. My head and feet are in agreement and that is all the church I know
LikeLike
Heretic!
LikeLike
Violet…
Not that you’re really interested, but virtually nothing practiced by Catholicism is reflective of what Jesus or the apostles actually taught. They claim to be the “True Church”, so what. The test of their truthfulness is in the scriptures, which they put themselves higher than.
The Early Church did not resemble Roman Catholicism whatsoever, so their claims of being based on the “office of Peter” etc are simply lies…
LikeLike
I agree. Christianity as you know it was based on the character Saul of Tarsus.
And you should doff your cap to Constantine and his ‘bitch’, Eusebius as well.
It was Peter’s ”Church” that was based on Jesus.
What you follow is primarily Pauline Doctrine with a large dollop of Catholicism, some doctrine from the Church Fathers such as Augustine, spiced up by Luther and whatever piss-willy cult/denomination you now follow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The “true” Christians were communists. It’s there in Acts. Try explaining that to any US evangelical today though and they have a head explosion.
LikeLike
I’ll give you socialist!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Large dollop of Catholicism”…? Either you don’t know that much about Catholicism, or don’t know that much about me, or both. (I’m guessing both…)
Augustine as well, I would argue, was no true “church father”, in terms of the first few generations of the apostles and their “understudies”, etc. He is revered within Catholicism, and a good many Protestants too who are largely ignorant of true church history.
I could rant all day about Constantine, but I’ll spare you that.
True Christianity is based on Jesus. The writings of Paul do not (as I know, so many people love to say…) create any sort of “new narrative” or “new Gospel” whatsoever. I’ve read them. Many times. The whole Bible in fact. If you did as well, you would quickly realize that neither Peter, nor Paul, nor any of the other apostles/disciples in the Early Church, went about creating anything that even remotely resembled the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. All you have to do is start by reading the Book of Acts…
LikeLike
Of course you follow Pauline Doctrine.
Who did Jesus say he would build his church upon?
Peter.
And why the hell do you think for one moment that your particular brand of Catholicism – for this is what it is in reality -is anything like what the character Jesus of Nazareth preached?
LikeLike
“Who did Jesus say he would build his church upon?
Peter”
Kinda funny that you don’t even realize that by saying this, you are actually relying upon Catholic doctrine yourself. That’s not in fact what Jesus meant. The “Rock” upon which He would build His Church was not Peter, but Himself.
But again… No idea how you think you can describe me as having some particular brand of Catholicism!
I know what Jesus preached. Do you…?
LikeLike
The original word is, of course, Cephas, and he and ‘James’ were considered founder members of the new Jewish-Christian sect, which were called Ebionites. At that stage, of course this new religion was not called Christianity or its followers even recognised as a such but merely another Jewish cult. ( Nothing much has really changed in this respect, has it?)
You are a later product of Luther, who inherited and carried forward such Catholic Doctrine as Original Sin and Hell.
That’s how I can describe you as being little more than a watered down Catholic, because in truth, you all are.
Maybe you should read your bible again?
The one the Catholics put together.
You don’t seem so jacked up on it after all?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would counter by pointing out that things like “original sin” and “hell” did not in fact originate within Catholicism, but from the scriptures themselves, but then, knowing your bizarre ideas about the how the scriptures were written, I’m guessing you’d just dismiss all that as not really being the case and so those doctrines much have been inserted much later?
No no. Catholicism essentially takes the entirety of the Gospel and turns it on it’s head. The Bible teaches that Jesus died for the sins of mankind, being the “sacrificial lamb” on the altar that paid the price once and for all. What Catholicism essentially does is try and reverse this, and compel it’s adherents to coming back to the catholic priesthood, again and again, to recite mass over them, “invoke” Christ into a wafer and crucify him over and over again, setting themselves up as basically the toll-booth-operators of Grace/Forgiveness.
I’d hate (or love) to see what kind of indignant whoop-ass would be unleashed if Peter or Paul were around to see what the Catholic Church does in Christ’s name…
LikeLike
Well, mister bible reader, the term Hell does not actually feature in the bible at all as the Hebrew language has no word for it. And in case you forgot, the bible was not written in English, or even American.
In fact, Judaism has no word for it. There were effectively two words, Sheol, which means grave or underworld, in the Torah and Gehenna, in the New, which referred to an actual place, a valley outside Jerusalem.
The Valley it referred to, The Valley of Gehinnom is now a park, in fact.
When the Greek writers composed the New they used the words Hades and later when it was translated onto English the closest equivalent was Hell.
The Hell you preach is a church construct and if you make the effort to do a little research you will find out why. I can provide a link if you ask.
As for Original Sin; this also does not feature in the Torah as Judaism has not concept of this.
Jesus did not teach it, neither did his disciples.
The allusion is, it can be traced to Paul, but the first definitive reference of this becoming a doctrine can be traced to Augustine.
So, sorry, old chap, you are a watered down Catholic.
It really bites believers in the arse when an atheist has to teach them their own religion, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
(You really don’t seem to think I’ve heard any of these sorts of routine Bible criticisms before, do you….?)
All you have to do is peruse the “red letters”, and see that regardless of whatever word/language Jesus was using, He was clearly not talking about the garbage dump outside of Jerusalem…
As for original sin not being “featured in the Torah”? It’s there alright, provided one doesn’t omit the entire first few chapter of Genesis. To point to the fact that rabbinic Judaism has no “concept” of this or that, is to completely miss the fact that according to Jesus Himself, even the rabbis of His day were indeed lost to the whole “concept” of what their entire scriptures were even about…
(Why do you think they wanted to kill Him so badly?) 😉
LikeLike
I have never actually seen a red letter bible.
Of course he was talking about Genenna.
He was referring to it in analogy. Smoking fires and all that crap.
I just explained the Jews had no word for this ‘Hell’, and Jesus was a Jew. You did know this, right?
Besides, in some up-to-date bibles’ the word actually appears. Some even have footnotes.
Unless thouest readeth an Olde KJV?
Now don’t start to be a Dickhead. I shall make a challenge.
The Torah was written by Jews, for Jews and preached by Jews.
Now, if you can find a Jewish scholar of the Torah who recognises the doctrine of Original Sin I will make a public apology and stand you a drink in the pub should ever we get the opportunity to meet.
Can’t be fairer than that.
Hit that Google Button!
I’ll explain why ”he” was killed once you have done a bit of proper research. Again, if you want links, just ask
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The Torah was written by Jews, for Jews and preached by Jews.”
The Torah, (according to the very words which it itself contains) was not written “by Jews”, but by God Himself, given TO the Jewish people, but not for themselves alone, but for the whole world. It was indeed “preached” by Jews, in both the Old and New Testament periods, but preached TO Jews and Gentiles alike actually, and if you but skim through the history of Israel we are reminded that a good many of those Jews weren’t too keen on the dictates of “their” God, just as the Pharisees weren’t too keen on the words coming out of Jesus mouth, when He told them things such as that they were not true “children of Abraham”….
They didn’t “get it” then, and so it comes as little surprise that the inheritors of Pharisaical tradition (what today is called Rabbinic Judaism) gets it even less…
LikeLike
@TISTF
First, as you did not respond further to the issue of Hell, I take it this is now dealt with? Good.
At least you have learned something. This makes me smile. Seriously.
Now, I asked quite politely that you not behave like a Dickhead and straight away, you come back and espouse dogma.
So, once again, irrespective of what your Young Earth Creationist mind set tells you, try to read the comment properly.
Let’s try it another angle. Jesus taught Mosaic Law. He states this up front. It’s what he came to fulfil. There is no doctrine of Original Sin contained in Mosaic Law.
If you are not prepared to produce a Jewish Scholar and are even going to question the words of your own man-god, Jesus of Nazareth, then please indicate in the Torah where it states human are subject to Original Sin. Book Chapter, Verse, if you please.
LikeLike
“Let’s try it another angle. Jesus taught Mosaic Law. He states this up front. It’s what he came to fulfil. There is no doctrine of Original Sin contained in Mosaic Law.”
This is correct, up until the last sentence…
The idea that would ask someone to produce a “Jewish scholar” (presumably a non-Messianic Jew, I take it) to back the claims of Christ is a bit like demanding someone quote atheist sources to prove Creation… (oh wait, you’ve actually done that too, haven’t you?) 😉
Practically the entire New Testament serves to explain the very thing you are demanding “book, chapter, verse” for, yet you seek to dismiss it, so I suppose you are then left at the mercy of your own circularly-reasoned “textual criticism”. Ever read the book of Romans? Hebrews? They go into great detail as to show how the Mosaic Law was in fact impossible to keep, and thus, the whole PURPOSE of it, from the very start, was to show the hopeless state of man’s own sinfulness. Of course modern Jewish scholars reject “original sin”, since the Pharisees in Jesus’ day were no less trying to formulate a way by which they could attain their OWN righteousness, through the Law.
But what do we actually see, when we go back and look at the examples of men like Abraham himself? He was in fact declared “righteous” by his faith in God, not by keeping the Law, and this alone utterly destroys the convoluted arguments and reinterpretations of the Jewish rabbis throughout the centuries, because everything they claim to build upon only points to Jesus, and His sacrifice for sin, in the end….
LikeLike
Practically the entire New Testament serves to explain the very thing you are demanding “book, chapter, verse” for
Is English your first language? Read Arks comment. Do you see him asking about the NT? No, so why are you referring to it? He wants you to show where the doctrine of Original Sin is contained in Mosaic Law.
LikeLike
I am referring to “it” because “it” would indeed do a much better job than I could in explaining how the ENTIRE Mosaic Law, from start to finish, testifies to the “doctrine of Original Sin”, due to the basic fact that no one, EVER, was able to actually keep it…. 😉
LikeLike
Stop dancing and just answer the question asked. Show Ark where the doctrine of original sin is contained in the OT
LikeLike
(I already DID. Go read Genesis 3)
LikeLike
Yep, you’re an idiot
LikeLike
Right. Cuz Genesis isn’t in the OT…(?)
I love how all you old guys just revert to name-calling like children on the playground, after I continually indulge your petulant demands for this or that, knowing I’m just going to have whatever I say thrown back in my face….
I guess in the end it makes me wonder…
Have any of you ever actually seen Dawkin’s call to mock and ridicule people into the “enlightened” position of atheism, actually, work…??
I mean, has anyone ever actually come back and said, “Gee, thanks for telling me what an idiot I was, your verbal abuse really helped me finally come around”….?
LikeLike
I asked you to produce evidence from the Old Testament that demonstrates the Doctrine of Original Sin. Book, chapter and verse.
And immediately you become defensive, and attempt a theological two step.
Roman and Hebrews? Pauline Doctrine. Your point? Next.
Thank you. You demonstrate perfectly that there is no evidence and you are simply parroting apologetics. It is church doctrine. Catholic Doctrine, which is even more ironic.
LikeLike
See my comment to Zande. The proof is simply that no one could keep the Law. Not Abraham. Not Moses. Not any of the prophets or kings or high priests of Israel. Not one.
Well, there was one who managed to keep the whole Law….
Like I said, this is the very reason why the scribes and Pharisees hated him, because He showed their self-styled “righteousness” for what it was. Worthless.
Your “catholic irony” comments are thus shown to be that much further off the mark, because you don’t seem to also comprehend that this is precisely what Catholicism eventually re-invented, simply in a more “gentile version”…
LikeLike
If you are stating that no one ould keep the law then by implication you afe stating that Original was part of that law, or was introdued at some stage.
Now, once again, demonstrate your thorough scholarly understanding of the bible and produce biblical evidence that Original Sin was part of this law.
If you cannot produce a scholar then show me where a) Yahweh states it, or b) Jesus.
LikeLike
“If you are stating that no one ould keep the law then by implication you afe stating that Original was part of that law, or was introdued at some stage.”
No, Sin came first. The Law was given to demonstrate the sober reality of Sin. Pretty straight-forward actually.
If you want a good place to start as to where Jesus talks about this, start with the spot which you already referred to yourself, Matthew 5. This is one of the places where Jesus explains things such as the fact that even harboring hatred in one’s heart is the same as actually committing murder, and looking lustfully at another woman is the same thing as committing adultery etc.
The Jews had never heard such a deep, heart-level application of the Law, and it was indeed shocking, because it quickly removes all hope of being able to keep such commands, outside of some type of miraculous, inner-renewal of the heart of man himself….
LikeLike
Original Sin is the doctrine that we are all born into Sin as a result of Adam. This doctrine does not appear anywhere in the entire bible.
Matt 5 does not in fact refer to this doctrine.
And once more please indicate where Yahweh or Jesus discusses or even mentions the Doctrine of Original Sin.
LikeLike
“Original Sin is the doctrine that we are all born into Sin as a result of Adam. This doctrine does not appear anywhere in the entire bible.”
You do not include the book of Genesis as being a part of the Bible…?
The Bible I read includes it. It talks about the first man, named “Adam”, and the first woman, named “Eve”, and a tree called the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”, of which God said “You must not eat of it, or you will surely die”…
And what does the Book of Genesis say they did? Did they obey, or disobey….?
LikeLike
Read the comment properly. Don’t interpret it. Just read it.
“Original Sin is the doctrine that we are all born into Sin as a result of Adam. This doctrine does not appear anywhere in the entire bible.”
LikeLike
I read your comment. I have already demonstrated it’s vapidly false assertion. I suppose you are relying on the somewhat obvious fact that the Book of Genesis is not written in the form of some dry theological treatise, but rather as a historical account, as the basis for your claim that “original sin appears nowhere in the Bible”, but this is really nothing more than a poor semantically-derived manipulation.
LikeLike
The Doctrine of Original Sin
states that humans are born into sin as a result of Adam’s fall.
Now, once again
LikeLike
and “once again”… Does Genesis describe Adam’s fall…?
LikeLike
… because you seem to be struggling with this concept.
The tendency to evil supposedly innate in all human beings, held to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall. The concept of original sin was established by the writings of St Augustine.
My emphasis
Are we now clear? It is a church construct .
It does not appear in the Old Testament and was not preached or even mentioned by the character, Jesus of Nazareth.
I hope you understand now?
So to recap.:
The Doctrine of Original Sin does not appear in the bible – ANYWHERE and neither does the Christian Hell, both of which are Church Constructs.
Got it?
Super!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Um, sorry, no. Just because you say it is so, does not suddenly make it thus! Augustine sure wrote plenty of Biblical commentary to be sure, but he didn’t invent original sin, nor hell.
Again… If you actually just read the Bible on it’s own, instead of reverting to theories about Catholic scholars who lived centuries after it was written, you would see for yourself how ludicrous it is to try and claim that a dude like Augustine “invented” these things! Sure, he came along and wrote some rather lengthy commentaries on these things. Good for him. Probably invented a variety of different theological terms to use in describing various concepts, but that is not at all the same as “inventing” the concepts himself.
You see what you want to see Arkenaten….
LikeLike
Lol… and at the last you back peddle. You think I sucked this put of my thumb Hilarious!
Oh, and I’ve read the bible, thank you so very much. More times than is probably good for my health.
As I said, Adam’s fall was his and his alone.
Yahweh said frak all about the rest of us.
This piece of scripture was interpreted by the church and the doctrine created.
The Jews do not recognise it and neither does Yahweh.
I didn’t make this up. Go and read farking Augustine and stop behaving like a humongous Arse-Hat.
Would you like a link?
Or if you have a copy of his work – I do – I can quote you chapter and verse if you like?
And while you’re at it, research some damn etymology as well. Try Sheol.
LikeLike
You didn’t read it carefully enough I’d say, if you seriously concluded (on your own) that it says that Adam’s fall was “his and his alone”.
You “can’t see the forest for the trees”, as they say….
LikeLike
Listen, Dickhead. I didn’t write the bible. I don’t even believe in it . It is a complete pile of horse droppings and truly I could not give a monkey’s uncle, what you believe – as long as you don’t spread it about like an unwelcome STD
But you seem to be struggling with basic reading and comprehension skills and when confronted with simple English and the facts, based on the evidence based on what the Church established; the Catholic Church that your cult is an offshoot of, you now want to play cute and suggest it originated in the bible.
Well, tough titty for you fish face – it isn’t there.
If you have a complaint , fight with the damn Catholics, but don’t moan at me, arsehole.
It is not in the bible and neither is Hell and you can whine all night for all I care.
Pull your finger out your backside and go and do some research.
Start with Augustine: On Christian Doctrine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am going to continue “spreading it about”, because I’ve found it to be the TRUTH, and one that I have found doesn’t rely on belligerence and animosity to be shared…
Peace out. 😉
LikeLike
Truth? You wouldn’t know truth if it bit you in the arse.
You have no integrity or honesty and at the last fall back on dogma.
You’re an intellectual fraud.
What a frakking disgrace.
LikeLike
You trying to give him some material for his Rave Reviews page? You’re so rude to my blog guests!
LikeLike
I’m sorry. Feel free to go through and delete where you feel necessary, or insert nice words like butterflies, rainbows etc.
I just feel quite strongly about lying and liars, that’s all.
It’s ranks right alongside stealing and I am a bit rankled today as a wad of money was stolen from the office by an employee, so I am feeling just a tad peed off.
LikeLike
Oddly enough, Truth has indeed “bit me in the arse” on more than one occasion…
Watch out for the teeth…
LikeLike
You are an indoctrinated Young Earth Creationist? How on earthdid you recognise it as truth?
LikeLike
“Indoctrinated”….
I was subjected to the indoctrination of Evolution far more than Creation growing up. So much for that…
I started being able to see the Truth when I finally came to the place where I could begin admitting to the depth of selfishness and rebellion in my own heart. Until you’re ready to start facing that one, you’re just the blind leading the blind…
LikeLike
Ah … so what was the emotional issue/s that brought you to your knees? Drugs, booze . sex/porn? All 3?
LikeLike
Jesus, I ask you to work in “Ark’s” heart right now, help him to see. To know the reality of sin. Of his and mine and the world at large. To know that You love him. Died for him. You know every thought we think, everything we’ve ever done, in the open and in secret, and You love us. I know I cannot change the heart of someone else, just as no one could change my heart when it was hurting and hard and running from You. Your patience and love and long-suffering for our sakes is beyond my ability to fathom. I praise You Lord, and ask that whatever weakness and pride that has crept into my words during these conversations might be overcome by Your power and wisdom and Spirit of Truth. I am a simple-minded fool in the end but You know all things. Thank you for saving me, even after I have done so much to destroy my own life. Even attempting to take it, when defeated by despair. You never give up on us, and You never stop calling us by name….
LikeLike
Truly awe inspiring – I am all agog. Though I would refer you prayed for child amputees or a cancer sufferer,rather than me. In fact my neighbours wife who recently passed away because of meningitis – she was 35 and had just given birth to her second kid – could have done with your god’s intervention about six months ago. Tough. But I suppose your god is pretty busy, right?
So, for now, you don’t have to worry about me. I’m really okay all things considered.
Now, once more, what caused the emotional problem that made you turn to relgion; Booze, sex, or drugs, violence?
LikeLike
What a crock of crap!
LikeLike
Oops, SOMEone’s getting testy —
LikeLike
It’s the hormone root powder on my hands. I keep chewing my nails and its sending my mood for a loop.
LikeLike
It could get serious if your tongue sprouts roots.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Doctrine of Original Sin
states that all humans are born into sin as a result of Adam’s fall.
Now, once again …
”Original Sin is the doctrine that we are all born into Sin as a result of Adam. This doctrine does not appear anywhere in the entire bible.”
Do you understand, now?
LikeLike
Do you…?
“The proof is in the pudding”, as they say. How long did it take for murder to enter the world, according to the Bible? How righteous were any of the sons and daughters of Adam, according to the Bible? How many human beings walked in innocence and in communion with God, as was the case in the Garden, after Adam and Eve were expelled, according to the Bible? How many of Israel’s “patriarchs”, and priests, and prophets, and kings, lived a sinless life, according to the Bible….?
A “doctrine” is of course just a simple statement of belief, but doctrinal statements do not just appear out of thin air. If that’s all the Bible was, just an empty doctrinal statement claiming that mankind was thoroughly “sinful”, without any historical or human context, then it would be actually much more easily dismissed. As it is, the “doctrine” is given in the form of human evidence, and ultimately, the true test of the evidence of this “doctrine” is found in your own heart Ark….
LikeLike
“vapidly false assertion“? – “dry theological treatise“? – “a poor semantically-derived manipulation“? – A short while above this, he was referring to Ark and John as, “you old Dudes“!
I’m beginning to believe that more than one person is writing under this name, and when “Dim-bulb Surfer Dude” gets in over his head, “Professor SuperChristian” steps in and bails him out. Can anyone see the difference in text styles?
LikeLike
Heh… what a perfect example of the absurdity of the “science” of higher textual criticism.
I am definitely one and the same guy, and yes, I sometimes say “dude”….
LikeLike
“…what a perfect example of the absurdity of the “science” of higher textual criticism.” – Which statement amply demonstrates how you little you know about the subject. My statement was an assumption – after a further accumulation of information, that assumption might or might not develop into an hypothesis, which then would need to be tested. Only after those tests were passed would it become a working theory, always subject to revision, if and when new evidence accumulates.
Now, tell me you go through the same process when you hear the words, “In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth –“
LikeLike
“after a further accumulation of information, that assumption might or might not develop into an hypothesis”…
Only this doesn’t happen with “textual criticism” of the Bible, since, (unlike the example of a contemporary blogger, whom you could presumably eventually confirm as to whether or not I am more than one author using the same name) all the authors of the Bible are long departed. I suppose if you were to someday find “the lost manuscript of Bob” which confirmed any original assumptions/hypotheses etc., then that’s all they remain. Of course, liberal academia never seems to have much qualms about jumping straight to “working theory”, and then presenting said theory as “tested fact”. Case in the point, the ridiculous “Jesus seminar” material…
LikeLike
What kind of nutjob stores knowledge in the fruit of a tree?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“If you want a good place to start as to where Jesus talks about this, start with the spot which you already referred to yourself, Matthew 5.”
The book of “Matthew” was written in about 75-77 AD by an anonymous author, who was never named “Matthew,” who never met Yeshua and had no first-hand knowledge that he ever lived, so it’s a little ridiculous to be looking in “Matthew” for anything that Yeshua said, because the anonymous author copied 90% of everything in his book, from the book of “Mark,” who was yet another anonymous author, writing about 72-73 AD.
LikeLike
“what do we actually see, when we go back and look at the examples of men like Abraham himself?”
Your knowledge of how the Bible came to be is baseless, in terms of evidence, and appears to be based entirely on supernatural beliefs, yet you had the gall to go off on BFA7, who admittedly is an idiot, yet the two of you seem to be cut from the same delusional cloth.
Now tell us some more about this incredible education you say you have —
LikeLike
“The Torah, (according to the very words which it itself contains) was not written “by Jews”, but by God Himself” – You really don’t know anything about how the Bible was written, do you? So many Christians, so little knowledge —
LikeLike
“The “Rock” upon which He would build His Church was not Peter, but Himself.” – Do you even KNOW that “Peter” means “rock”? Sheesh!
“I know what Jesus preached. Do you…?” – No, you don’t. You know what four anonymous men, who never met Yeshua, if in fact he ever existed, SAID that he said!
LikeLike
Yes, I know Peter means “Rock”. Every kid in Sunday School knows this. Every kid in Sunday School also knows that Peter Himself was no “rock”! So again, contrary to what the Catholics claim, the Church was not built upon Peter. It was built upon “the stone, which the builder’s rejected, that has now become the capstone”…
LikeLike
You tend to decide for yourself what the Bible means, regardless of what it says.
LikeLike
Oh yeah – the Book of Acts, written after the 1st century, after all of the apostles were long dead, would definitely be the place to go for truth —
http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/seminar-on-the-acts-of-the-apostles/acts-seminar-to-complete-its-work-at-spring-meeting/
LikeLike
(oh no you didn’t just post a link to some “Jesus seminar” page….)
LikeLike
Jesus, if he lived was the only christian since then we have only followers of Paul. I don’t think even the disciples tried to live by the sermon on the Mount for a week.
LikeLike
Ark says: “… because you seem to be struggling with this concept.
The tendency to evil supposedly innate in all human beings, held to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall. The concept of original sin was established by the writings of St Augustine.”
I had to read that about 15X over a period of two days before I understood what you were trying to say. Apparently I’m not the only one a little slow on the uptake. Gotta go easy Ark! Some of us can’t unbend our indoctrinated minds that fast.
LikeLike
Yes, I heard Ark in all his 15+ times repeating this same notion. The problem is it’s just patently false. Know why? Because Augustine didn’t write a single word of the Bible, which is where these “doctrines” are actually found! He may have written copious amounts of commentary ON them, (like I already said), but this does not for one second mean that he originated any of them. Look:
Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. (Ecclesiastes 7:20)
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5)
The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies. (Psalm 58:3)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Romans 5:12)
There are dozens more: http://www.openbible.info/topics/being_born_in_sin
LikeLike
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Romans 5:12)
What you don’t get, Fiction, is that if that scenario were true, then your god chose to say that a particular behavior was “sin,” and that death was the punishment – he set the rules. If he had truly loved us, as John 3:16 would imply, he’d have left us alone to live according to our natures, like all of the other animals. No other animal has the imagination required to create a god, clearly we did it to ourselves – THAT was our original sin!
LikeLike
Well, I like how you’re now just suddenly jumping right past the fact that your assertions about “Augustine inventing the concept of original sin” don’t square very well with the vast evidence of Scripture, but anyhow….
Yes. “He set the rules”. Now you’re finally getting into some type of “paradoxical biblical claims” actually worth debating. Not only did He “set the rules”, by making a tree with tempting, sumptuous fruit hanging all over it, He somehow decided to “leave the back gate of the Garden open” so that Satan could slither in and talk Eve into eating it. Why would a “loving God” do THAT? 😉
But once again, I am struck by the irony of hearing you describe humanity as the only “animal” whose imagination could invent God, this invention being our true “original sin”. If we are all products of Evolution, then the “invention of God” was itself just another product of Evolution, and there is no such concept of “sin” within the realm of an Evolutionary universe, because there are no “rules”…
The mindless Evolutionary universe, (unlike the God of the Bible) is actually quite incapable of even knowing, or caring, if we believe in it or not… 😉
LikeLike
“Well, I like how you’re now just suddenly jumping right past the fact that your assertions about “Augustine inventing the concept of original sin” don’t square very well with the vast evidence of Scripture, but anyhow….”
Two words, NumbNuts — Arch – Ark — get us straight! I have never mentioned Saint Augustine, except to say that it makes an excellent groundcover for a lawn, does well in full sun, but will tolerate partial shade.
LikeLike
My sincerest apologies…
(do you realize how confusing it gets after a while, when I’m sitting here trying to respond to half a dozen comments from each of you, Ark/Arch…? I’m sorry I got my arguments/argumentors for atheism mixed up.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…there is no such concept of “sin” within the realm of an Evolutionary universe, because there are no ‘rules’…
The mindless Evolutionary universe, (unlike the God of the Bible) is actually quite incapable of even knowing, or caring, if we believe in it or not…”
By George, I think he’s finally getting it!
LikeLike
I’ve “gotten” this all along. What I DON’T get is how then you are left with any grounds whatsoever to worry about what you, or anyone else, even believes in the end, because everything that’s happening, every “thought”, every religion, every civilization, every fashion trend and every commercial seen on tv, EVERYTHING, even this conversation itself, is just a product of “Evolution”.
Yet you still somehow try to make some point about the invention of God being the true “original sin”…
So I guess you should blame Evolution itself for this “invention”, shouldn’t you?
LikeLike
“Yet you still somehow try to make some point about the invention of God being the true ‘original sin’…” – Absolutely, because it has brought so much pain and misery into the world. You really don’t get the concept of evolution, do you? Just because the Universe itself has no meaning, we, as Humans, give to, and take from, our relationships with each other – no gods need apply.
LikeLike
Yes, I most definitely get the concept of Evolution! “No gods need apply”, because we’ve already “filled the position”. 🙂
Not doing a very good job though I’d say, and the notion that “religion” is the thing ultimately responsible for most of the pain and misery in the world? It is as over-simplified a notion as it is false.
LikeLike
Here we go with the scripture. I’m sorry, I just can’t do this kind of debate. I’ve read the bible so many times cover to cover, and you can bend that stuff any way you want. That’s why it’s all unreliable. All of it! You can cherry pick a thousand verses to make it seem like it makes sense, but it never does. Burn the bible, and use some other evidence.
Sorry if this was overly rude…I’m not trying to be inflammatory. I just think arguing the bible with the bible (or companion writings) is like trying to wipe up $hit with more $hit. I know lots of other people seem to be able argue with the The Good Book really well…it’s just not something I can stomach right now.
Have a good day truthisstranger. 🙂 I leave you in the good hands of others here.
LikeLike
“The Early Church did not resemble Roman Catholicism whatsoever”
I see. So have you sold all your possessions to live with a group of believers spreading the good word and healing the sick? Seeing as there is no Christian denomination that resembles the early church, I think you’ll have to conclude that your god expected his church to evolve. In which case, best go with the one Jesus recommended. Say three Hail Marys, you heathen!
LikeLike
You are right about one thing, there is no denomination that truly resembles the Early Church. That’s because the Early Church wasn’t any sort of “denomination”, nor did it try to be. I don’t have to conclude that God intended the Church to “evolve”, because the Word of God says no such thing.
I should tell you however that there are indeed a growing number of people today who are rejecting both the “models” of Catholicism, and “Protestantism” (which mainly errs by always comparing itself to the RCC, instead of the Word of God itself) and in fact returning back to the Early Church model as described in the New Testament, mainly in the form of “house churches” or “organic church”. They aren’t selling all their possessions and living some monastic lifestyle, but then, if you look at the scripture you’ll see that they weren’t actually doing that back then either. They met in each other’s homes (so, they had homes!) but yes, they did heal the sick, feed the hungry, and actually live much more as a true “family” in the sense of taking care of everyone’s needs within the congregation (esp. widows, orphans, needy, etc.) It was very much in contrast to the type of “come sit in a pew and pay the professional preacher” model we are so familiar with today.
LikeLike
Hahaha! Hi Vi
LikeLike
“They track the destruction of the Catholic Church from the first mass not held in Latin – was that in the 1960s? It’s great fun.” – It goes back much further than that, to the 1600 CE edict that allowed Bibles to be printed in languages other than Latin.
LikeLike
Ah, good point, they should be annoyed about that too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think those old virgins at the Vatican will elect Vi. Maybe she could try and run to be a Mother Superior for some order that way she will have the ear of the pope.
And I agree with you, the protestants would agree with the bible
LikeLike
Popes hate nuns…see here: http://www.thewire.com/national/2012/04/vatican-criticizes-us-nuns-being-too-progressive/51328/
That article should burn your feminist heart right to the ground, Vi. How dare US nuns worry about the sick and the poor…f’ing audacity!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I read that at that time and went what da f!
LikeLike
Poke. Poke. Poke. Poke 🙂
LikeLike
I try my best but they just don’t bite! I’m right though, and all the lurkers know it. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, I just did a Citizen Tom special, too
LikeLiked by 1 person
He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ 16 Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah,[c] the Son of the living God.’ 17 And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’
Yeah. Jesus gives the keys to all of us. That is my story and I am sticking to it.
LikeLike
Even the Quakers. To Mass you must go!
LikeLike
Only the catholics call it “mass.” Protestants call it “church,” or “services.” Go ahead and thank me for expanding your mind with that essential info.
LikeLike
I know! That’s why she has to go to Mass. Not a Quaker sit-in-and-think session.
LikeLike
Oh yeah, yeah, I get it. Little obscure for my sleep deprived brain is all.
LikeLike
Hey, I’m screwing up Peter and Paul here, I’m missing catholic jokes…and I haven’t had more than three hours of sleep in two days thanks to my son, who apparently doesn’t need sleep. Maybe I’m a little addled, or maybe I’m on the verge of insanity, I can’t be sure.
LikeLike
Apparently I’m even screwing up and responding to myself instead of you…see above comment. I should probably get off the internet before I blow up the wordpress server.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not far behind you. Off to bed at 9pm in the hope my brain can function tomorrow…
LikeLike
LikeLike
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…”
That’s educational. I had no idea protestants based their ideas on the “keys” given to Paul. I, as a former catholic, read that totally differently, but alas that’s not surprising. I learn something new everyday.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul or Peter?
LikeLike
Sorry Vi, catholic doctrine and bible stories are dropping out of my head at an alarming rate. Cuz six months ago I would have NEVER confused Peter and Paul. You darn atheists are affecting me poorly. 😀
LikeLike
I was just checking because I always confused them, and wondered if I was at it again. I got Jonah and Job muddled last week. Really should ring-fence some dedicated Bible time! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are correct that PETER is the cornerstone and rock of the church.
LikeLike
PS Your duck is very pleasing to the eye.
LikeLike
You’re definitely my best blogging buddy! You’re better at the picture praise than even Ark was when he bothered his arse.
LikeLike
Just so you know for sure, it’s not pointless flattery…I really do enjoy your photography! Your mallard is colorful to the extreme and very pleasing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You have to cut him a little slack, he’s British. Also, he’s a writer – you can tell, as the second sentence of his you quoted has no subject – hey, I didn’t say he was a good one —
LikeLike
I’ve noticed a lot of debates with christians seem to devolve into the creationism/evolution arguments as it did above. Is this how it usually goes? I was on another blog arguing about how trust in god is not rational, when CS came in and started in on the creationism thing. It was a *very* odd conversation and he was talking about “first babies” and other things that made no sense whatsoever to me. Is evolution the end-line for 90% of the conversations you guys get into?
LikeLike
“It was a *very* odd conversation and he was talking about “first babies” and other things that made no sense whatsoever to me.” – Actually I think you’ve described Colorstorm rather well – the day he makes sense to me, is the day I start worrying about my sanity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s even better is that he declared victory over me in the end…but that’s like declaring debate victory over someone who doesn’t speak your language and has no idea what you’ve said. It gave me quite a chuckle, but then I’ve admitted before how I’m easily amused.
LikeLike
“he declared victory over me in the end” – Yeah, well, see, I post quite a bit on his blog, and he withholds any comment of mine that tries to disprove what he says, which allows him a number of self-satisfying victories. I even post the names of authors of what I say, as proof that I’m not just making things up, but he deletes those, saying he isn’t giving those atheists any free publicity. The funny part is, most of those he deletes are Christian scholars, who have the courage to be honest about the Bible, and not atheists at all.
LikeLike
Ha! Well thankfully my debate was on a third party’s blog, and not of my comments or his were deleted. I went to his website and saw his post about evolution and first babies, and think I *finally* figured out he was talking about EVE being the mother of the first baby. I could not deduce that from his rantings with me though. He does not seem to take a very straight line in his arguing.
LikeLike
“I *finally* figured out he was talking about EVE being the mother of the first baby” – Oh, that’s exactly what he meant, but he wanted to ask questions in such a way, that the answers lead to that as the only possible conclusion – I chose not to play his game, turned it around on him, asking to which species of ape he referred, Orangutan, gorilla, Chimpanzee, Bonobo or human – of course, he went off on the assertion that humans were apes, or even animals at all, for that matter. I enjoy playing with him, as he is such an idiot.
LikeLike
Sorry – “weren’t apes or animals” —
LikeLike
A couple of years ago I was studying Church History and undertook and assignment on the Schism between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. From my reading of the schism it seemed that there was fault on both sides, but weighted more heavily towards the the Catholic side. The Apostle Peter founded more than just the church of Rome and there was a strong case for his successor being in the Eastern, not the Western Church.
If Protestant’s did want to rejoin the mother church, perhaps they should look east. We know it won’t happen because most of the extreme folk in Protestant circles demonise the Catholics and know next to nothing about the Orthodox Church.
During the Schism of the 11th century we had the unseemly outcome of both sides ex-communicating each other. Cardinal Humbert, legate of Pope Leo IX, was no small cause of the schism, if one was selecting a person to be a negotiator to heal a rift, you would not send Cardinal Humert. The Christian History Institute describes him as ‘a tactless and narrow-minded man with a strong sense of papal authority’.
I do see some similarity in approach on various blogs seeking to defend Christianity (thankfully not all) just replace ‘papal’ with ‘biblical’.
The reality of Church History was a key factor in causing me to start questioning my faith. The Church looked like a depressingly flawed human institution.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, these are great points. I did think about mentioning the Eastern Orthodox Church but didn’t want to complicate things. But you’re right that from the Christian point of view it’s an alternative with some validity.
I had a similar experience to you, in that studying the mess of religious history helped me immensely along the road to deconversion. The nasty Bible kick-started it for me though.
LikeLike