Manchester next

[malakos]

"Religion of peace" is an oxymoron.

Not really. There are a number of religions that are peaceful at their roots. Islam happens to not be one of them though.

 

[deleted37010]

Don't let me start about how the Trinity makes perfect sense.... I am a catechism black belt, you been warned.

It makes no sense whatsoever!

I'm a hard-core scripture ninja. Yo' been warned also.

raised southern baptist... attended a pentacostal bible college...

 

[Drifterwood]

Not at all. Two torts don't make a right. If I think what you did is wrong, I shouldn't do it myself. You are also misunderstanding what me and others have said, no one is saying that crusades are the reason why we have islamic terrorism etc. etc..

There are at least five wrongs. You are stuck in dualism. It is pretty common. I hope you get to see beyond it and the singular position you need in conclusion in order to understand your world.

 

[TexanStar]

However - the spiritual laws, in terms of 10 Commandments, etc (as @marinera mentioned) are still intact, and form the basis of what Jesus taught.

I dunno. The 10 commandments are largely negative reinforcement, Jesus' teachings are largely positive reinforcement.

Old testament = Don't do this or I'll hate you.
New testament = Do this that we might love one another.

A lot of the same topics get covered, but the approach is grossly different.

 

[Drifterwood]

Not really. There are a number of religions that are peaceful at their roots. Islam happens to not be one of them though.

Which ones? I'll take you on with this

Just as a heads up, there have been Buddhist Monk terrorist attacks. Quite remarkable, I admit, but perhaps it shows that adherence to holiness does not absolve us from being naked apes.

 

[Chrysippus]

All of this religious discussion on a site dedicated to big cocks and fleshly delights--hilarious!

 

[798686]

I dunno. The 10 commandments are largely negative reinforcement, Jesus' teachings are largely positive reinforcement.

Old testament = Don't do this or I'll hate you.
New testament = Do this that we might love one another.

A lot of the same topics get covered, but the approach is grossly different.

So why did he say whosoever breaks the smallest of the Commandments will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

I do know what you mean though - his approach seems (and is?) far more merciful and forgiving. Such as letting the woman caught in adultery go, and just saying don't do it again (and criticising those who sought to judge her).

I guess... it's basically saying that those laws or principles are still the basis - but accepting that it's nigh on impossible to get it right all the time, and that forgiveness is also needed (hence the sacrifice).

 

[798686]

All of this religious discussion on a site dedicated to big cocks and fleshly delights--hilarious!

Life's full of contradick-tions, yo.

 

[marinera]

Exactly - Jesus seemed to magnify the core principles rather than abolish them.

....
However - the spiritual laws, in terms of 10 Commandments, etc (as @marinera mentioned) are still intact, and form the basis of what Jesus taught.

Ok. Then, back to base: are the position of God about people who worships false gods still true also? What is written in the passages I mentioned - exterminate them all, cut them in pieces etc. etc.?

 

[798686]

Ok. Then, back to base: are the position of God about people who worships false gods still true also? What is written in the passages I mentioned - exterminate them all, cut them in pieces etc. etc.?

I guess the rule of thumb is - if you're free from sin, you're free to judge (ie: we're not).

I do think the false religion thing is for God to judge, rather than us - otherwise you get into the whole beheading people etc, which sort of contradicts the whole spirit of the 10 Commandments in the first place.

Also - people's view on what false religion constitutes differs wildly - so since we're not able to agree on what it is (and each feel everyone else's is incorrect to some degree) - better to let God judge and dole out praise or correction as he sees fit?

 

[malakos]

The Church should really base its understanding on scripture rather than tradition - especially where the two come into conflict (like Sunday worship, for instance).

This is a totally preposterous and history-blind view of the Scriptures. The obvious historical reality is that the Scriptures are an expression of Tradition. So they cannot stand above it.

 

[Drifterwood]

What is it with people on this forum and nuance? I said there are a number of religions that are peaceful at their roots. A handful of modern Buddhist terrorists don't come close to making any point about the peaceful roots of Buddhism.

So you changed the meaning of a post to make a different point. Your point is therefore irrelevant itself.

"I am peaceful, but if you fuck with me, I will obliterate you. And BTW fucking with me is to my definition."

Doesn't sound like a reasonable deal to me.

Roots, really, wtf does that even mean.

 

[798686]

This is a totally preposterous and history-blind view of the Scriptures. The obvious historical reality is that the Scriptures are an expression of Tradition. So they cannot stand above it.

Prove it.

 

[TexanStar]

So why did he say whosoever breaks the smallest of the Commandments will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

He totally does NOT say that.

Firstly, you're missing an "and". He's talking about people who break commandments AND teach others to do so. You completely left out the second condition.

Secondly, in the context that he makes this remark, he references the person being in heaven, but not looked favorably upon (as opposed to being in hell). Where he talks about someone being considered the least in the kingdom of heaven, you changed that to a pass/fail condition on getting through the gates.

None of us can say with certainty who is or isn't going to be in Heaven. The New Testament just lays out the advice and guidance for getting there. You can't read Jesus' teachings and then be able to tell someone they're not going based on the way they've lived their life (you can say it, but you can't actually know it).

 

[malakos]

I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I'm pretty sure the people who taught you got Catholic doctrine wrong. I think they have garbled the Roman Catholic hermeneutics implicit within three-fold and four-fold exegesis. Putting it in these terms I can understand why! The problem is that when people who don't really understand what they are saying try to explain it to children they say things which are wrong, and yes I can see they might resort to some garbage like "the paths of God are mysterious".

I could explain 3x and 4x exegesis, but give me a break. However RCs who know their stuff know that the NT replaces the OT, though there is still value in the OT.

Sort of, but I wouldn't say "replace" is the right word. The New Testament supersedes the OT. A full replacement would mean the OT is no longer of any value and should just be discarded. Superseding in this context means the NT is the more perfect revelation and provides the lens through which the OT, which no longer has any authority independent of the revelation of Christ.

 

[798686]

None of us can say with certainty who is or isn't going to be in Heaven. The New Testament just lays out the advice and guidance for getting there. You can't read Jesus' teachings and then be able to tell someone they're not going based on the way they've lived their life (you can say it, but you can't actually know it).

I agree. Where did I say we could judge who will and won't go?

All I'm saying is he stated that whoever broke the smallest of the commandments (and yes - 'and taught others to do so') would not get into the kingdom of heaven. This shows he considered the Commandments still in force.

Where do you get the hell bit from - and the bit where you think the referred to person was already in heaven?!

What about this do you disagree with?!

 

[malakos]

Prove it.

What is there to prove? It's obvious if you think for just a second about the first couple decades of Church history. The Apostles already had the doctrine before the NT was written, which they used to instruct people in the faith. That's Tradition.

 

[Jason]

It makes no sense whatsoever!

I'm a hard-core scripture ninja. Yo' been warned also.

Once I met a guy who said he could quote the complete works of Shakespeare. I tested him. He could. Joll is similar. He knows his Bible inside out. Hard-core!

 

[deleted37010]

He totally does NOT say that.

Firstly, you're missing an "and". He's talking about people who break commandments AND teach others to do so. You completely left out the second condition.

Secondly, in the context that he makes this remark, he references the person being in heaven, but not looked favorably upon (as opposed to being in hell). Where he talks about someone being considered the least in the kingdom of heaven, you changed that to a pass/fail condition on getting through the gates.

None of us can say with certainty who is or isn't going to be in Heaven. The New Testament just lays out the advice and guidance for getting there. You can't read Jesus' teachings and then be able to tell someone they're not going based on the way they've lived their life (you can say it, but you can't actually know it).

i adore you... and think i'd like to argue... LOL
but ONLY that
the whole reason for religion is the certainty of who is and isn't going to heaven
christianity is an exclusive heaven... only for the saved... well, unless you're a universalist

 

[deleted37010]

What is there to prove? It's self-evident. The Apostles already had the doctrine before the NT was written, which they used to instruct people in the faith. That's Tradition.

i'd argue paul laid out the doctrine... which is why peter lost and we're not jewish