What do Christians Believe?

[Shih Yo Chi]

As I read through these forums I've discovered that there is a great diversity of Christian thought that I hadn't known existed. My experience with Christianity comes from traditional Protestant thought which does not reflect what I've come to believe. I'd still like to consider myself a Christian, but wonder how much traditional Christian dogma I can reject and still be called a Christian by other Christians. This leads me to consider where other Christians' would "Draw the line". I will probably continue to call myself a Christian unless I discover something that better describes my beliefs.

Must I believe in the Christ as the "only" son of God?

Must I believe that Christ died for my sins?

Must I believe in an afterlife?

I am searching for answers from open minded Christians and I'm sure there are many other points that could be included for discussion. I do believe that Christ's life and teachings can be the basis for a spiritually enlightened and fullfilling life.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Shih Yo Chi!

... I've discovered that there is a great diversity of Christian thought that I hadn't known existed. My experience with Christianity comes from traditional Protestant thought which does not reflect what I've come to believe.

I want to believe I understand what you are saying here. I have seen many traditonal teachings that are contrary, or at best superfluous, to the Bible.

I'd still like to consider myself a Christian, but wonder how much traditional Christian dogma I can reject and still be called a Christian by other Christians. This leads me to consider where other Christians' would "Draw the line". I will probably continue to call myself a Christian unless I discover something that better describes my beliefs.

Does it really matter what other "Christians" think of you? For what it is worth, I could care less about what anybody else thinks of my beliefs. My concerns lie in how others view my actions towards them, and ultmately how God views how I live my life.

Must I believe in the Christ as the "only" son of God?

I suppose a lot deals with what it is you really mean. Every person who ever drew breath on this planet (and possibly those who figuratively drew breath anyplace else, like angels) are sons and daughters of God.

Must I believe that Christ died for my sins?

Christ's sacrifice was made to replace the sacrifice of bulls and goats commonly offered for remission of sin in the Holy Land at the time. There are some who disagree with Yashua's suitability for this purpose, and that is fine. You asked specifically from a Christian perspective. Try reading Psalms 22, keeping in mind these words were written 1000 years before Christ walked the earth. It is an amazing prophecy. And there are more prophecies in the Old Testament that Christ fulfilled pertaining to who should fill the role of the promised Messiah. In my humble opinion, I believe that Christ's sacrifice is crucial to the Christian faith, and is a fundamental tenet of that faith.

Must I believe in an afterlife?

I don't suppose one would have to believe in an afterlife, but it would seem to me a little, well, unusual. There is a great deal of emphasis in the Bible placed on the time of teaching to come, the 1000 year reign, after which the wheat will be separated from the chaff, and each will be sent to their destiny. Most of this is glossed over and ignored in traditional Christian teachings, I can only guess as to why. There are a lot of things commonly taught in churches that are simply not Biblical, like Easter.

I am searching for answers from open minded Christians and I'm sure there are many other points that could be included for discussion.

I try to be accomodating of others' beliefs, and I'm certainly not so pig-headed as to think I know it all and have it all figured out. I'm still learning too, but I'm having a blast while I'm in school!

I do believe that Christ's life and teachings can be the basis for a spiritually enlightened and fullfilling life.

BINGO! You win the doorprize! I agree, wholeheartedly and in no uncertain terms.

I am certain there are others that view the fundamentals of the Christian faith in a different manner, and that is fine, until they try to force their views on me. Therein lies one of the big differences: I believe we can agree to disagree, and still remain friends.

I don't know if any of this will help you, but maybe it can start a sincere discussion.

 

[littlemissattitude]

First of all, Shih Yo Chi, welcome to the forum.

I've come to believe that to try to say what "Christians" believe is like trying to say what "human beings" believe. It just isn't possible to find one set of beliefs that applies to the whole group. As you say you have discovered, there is a huge diversity of belief among those who characterize themselves as Christians. That diversity is so great that there are constantly "Christians" trying to read other "Christians" out of Christianity entirely, based on the fact that they don't agree on every item of doctrine. I think this is unfortuante.

I did my upper division work at a Christian univeristy (run by the Mennonite Brethren, by the way; as a disclaimer, I am not personally a Mennonite), and as part of my program in Intercultural Studies, I did a survey of the undergraduate population of the university - all 912 of them, if I remember correctly. Even within that small group (I think I got something over a 20 per cent response rate, not bad for a first-time surveyer), there were respondents from a huge number of different denominations (at least 15 to 20 different denominations, if I recall correctly; I wish I had my data in front of me), plus a few who claimed no religious affiliation and one Wiccan. One of the reasons I decided to do that survey was that I had heard all kinds of "discussions" (some of them better characterized as arguments) over what constituted Christian belief.

In the classes I took, among them World Religions and Christianity in the Non-Western World, I was exposed to an amazing variety of belief systems, all of which professed Christianity. So, no matter what your set of beliefs, my bet is that you will be able to find some Christian body of believers out there who will fit most if not all of your beliefs. Good luck in your search.

 

[JJM]

As I read through these forums I've discovered that there is a great diversity of Christian thought that I hadn't known existed. My experience with Christianity comes from traditional Protestant thought which does not reflect what I've come to believe. I'd still like to consider myself a Christian, but wonder how much traditional Christian dogma I can reject and still be called a Christian by other Christians. This leads me to consider where other Christians' would "Draw the line". I will probably continue to call myself a Christian unless I discover something that better describes my beliefs.

I'd like to start by saying that I don't wish to tell you your not a Christian but There are some things you must accept in order to be a Christian. 1. You must think Jesus was the messiah because Christ means messiah. And Christian is derived from Christ. besides that then you can believe what ever you want the remainder of my post is simply going to be answering the questions your wrote.

Must I believe in the Christ as the "only" son of God?

Well it depends what you mean as Juantoo2 has already stated. technically we are all the children of god. But I think it is safe to say that you’d pretty much have to believe God never actually conceived another child with another woman if you follow the teachings of the bible but Like I said you could think the Bible to be rubbish as long as you think that Jesus is a savior you are technically a Christian however I have never met a Christian who thought God conceived a child with a woman other than Mary.

Must I believe that Christ died for my sins?

No because of the savior thing I previously mentioned. However This act is what most people believe made Jesus a savior so I'd say it be really hard to get around believing that one.

Must I believe in an afterlife?

Not necessarily. Jesus often speaks of the afterlife in my opinion but you could interpret that anyway you want.

I am searching for answers from open minded Christians and I'm sure there are many other points that could be included for discussion. I do believe that Christ's life and teachings can be the basis for a spiritually enlightened and fullfilling life.

I think that this last thing is Good and I do to but it alone doesn't make you a Christian. All you have to do is believe that Jesus is Christ.

__________________________________________________________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Don't quarrel.

As I read through these forums I've discovered that there is a great diversity of Christian thought that I hadn't known existed. My experience with Christianity comes from traditional Protestant thought which does not reflect what I've come to believe. I'd still like to consider myself a Christian, but wonder how much traditional Christian dogma I can reject and still be called a Christian by other Christians. This leads me to consider where other Christians' would "Draw the line". I will probably continue to call myself a Christian unless I discover something that better describes my beliefs.

Must I believe in the Christ as the "only" son of God?

Must I believe that Christ died for my sins?

Must I believe in an afterlife?

I am searching for answers from open minded Christians and I'm sure there are many other points that could be included for discussion. I do believe that Christ's life and teachings can be the basis for a spiritually enlightened and fullfilling life.

I am a Christian also, a postgraduate Catholic. I believe in everything you believe in, well at least the things you mention in your post.

But you don't have to quarrel with anyone over your beliefs and their beliefs.

If anyone tell you that your beliefs are wrong or stupid or crazy; avoid talking with him except for basic social courtesies.

But you don't have to get killed or kill for your beliefs. I certainly will not get myself hurt or hurt others for my beliefs.

I can give up my beliefs and pick them up again, no trouble there. Why? Because they are beliefs. I can't give up the law of gravity and jump out the window, can I? But if you give up your beliefs and you die without them, then you will go to the Christian hell?

Don't worry so much, that hell business is also a belief. If you want to be logical even in hell God is providential. Listen to this:

A guy was dying, and the priest or pastor was telling him to repent so that he won't get to hell where the fire burns so fiercely that you will scream and howl and gnash your teeth for the extreme agony. The guy
informed the minister that he had no teeth. "No to worry, God will provide", the minster assured him. So even in hell God is provident-ial. Hehehehe.*

In time you will be able to be a Christian without losing your intelligence and your independence. Religion should not make us slavish to a religion.


Susma Rio Sep

*I have told that joke in some other earlier posts.

 

[Shih Yo Chi]

Thanks for the insightfull replies. All of you have given me some things which I need to contemplate. In response to juantoo3's question, "Does it really matter what other "Christians" think of you?" this is the point that I understand about myself the least. I have had nearly the same beliefs for 20 years and for most of them I really didn't care, but something has changed recently. Possibly it's seeing my parents reach the end of their lives, but I am looking for something. If not acceptance then at least a healthy dialog with other "seekers". Wait, that's what I'm doing right now!

I guess where I need to spend the most time understanding my beliefs in relation to the traditional Christian is highlighted by JJM and alluded to by juantoo3's response. I'm trying to understand the difference between the "Son of God", and the children of God that we all are. Jesus was Christ, but as I read his words they seem to be telling me that each of us has that in us, so my interpretation is that all of us can achieve the same spiritual enlightment as Jesus. Would you say that believing God conceived Jesus physically, gives Jesus a different connection to God than we as not being physically conceived by God have?

As I'm writing this some things seem to be getting a little clearer. I need to think about the "Conception by God" issue. If one believes that Jesus was physically conceived by God and no one else ever has been, or if one believes that Jesus was spiritually concieved by God and that potientially we are all spiritually conceived by God, would seem to be an issue that I must resolve in myself as I walk down the path.

Thank you all again for you response.

 

[JJM]

I guess where I need to spend the most time understanding my beliefs in relation to the traditional Christian is highlighted by JJM and alluded to by juantoo3's response. I'm trying to understand the difference between the "Son of God", and the children of God that we all are. Jesus was Christ, but as I read his words they seem to be telling me that each of us has that in us, so my interpretation is that all of us can achieve the same spiritual enlightment as Jesus. Would you say that believing God conceived Jesus physically, gives Jesus a different connection to God than we as not being physically conceived by God have?

.

In most Christian teachings you would say that Jesus doesn't have a special relationship with God he is literally God The son and the father are one in the same. The same personalities and identities just different bodies at one point. (Assuming the Father has a body).


__________________________________________________________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Shih Yo Chi!

I'm trying to understand the difference between the "Son of God", and the children of God that we all are.

The difficulty I often see with this is semantic. We are all children of God, but Jesus is Messiah.

Jesus was Christ, but as I read his words they seem to be telling me that each of us has that in us, so my interpretation is that all of us can achieve the same spiritual enlightment as Jesus.

I forget now the linguistic distinctions that illuminate the term "Christ", but it boils down to "Messiah." The term "Son of God" is often used to denote Messiah, but other terms are used as well, such as "Son of Man." Yes, we have the capacity and capability of spiritual enlightenment, but to achieve "the same" (level?) of enlightenment, I personally do not think so. Otherwise, we would have no need of a Messiah or Savior. There cannot be multiple Messiahs, God only has so many right hands for Messiah to sit at.

Would you say that believing God conceived Jesus physically, gives Jesus a different connection to God than we as not being physically conceived by God have?

I need to think about the "Conception by God" issue. If one believes that Jesus was physically conceived by God and no one else ever has been, or if one believes that Jesus was spiritually concieved by God and that potientially we are all spiritually conceived by God, would seem to be an issue that I must resolve in myself as I walk down the path.

In this I struggle as well. The traditional explanation of "artificial insemination" by the Holy Spirit is a point of contention among non-Christians, and is tough to reconcile at face value. Immaculate Conception is not impossible in my mind, but it is difficult to rationalize.

There are other components I take into consideration as well, such as certain traditions in that region among "pagans" to deify certain mortals (such as Ceasar) in order to give them more authority. And anyway, does Messiah of necessity have to be Immaculately Conceived to fulfill prophecies relating to being Messiah? I already know the glib answers, I have yet to hear the matter addressed with clarity by Biblical scholars.

Even so, I do not allow these things to dilute in my mind the spiritual and moral teachings of Yashua ha Messhiach , Jesus the Messiah. Whether "just" a man, or a miraculous extension of God, he fulfilled a purpose (serving as the "once for all" sacrifice for the remission of our sins) and set an example (how to live our lives), for those of us who choose to follow in his footsteps.

 

[JJM]

I'd like to start off by correcting something. The Immaculate Conception is in reference to the conception of Mary not that of Jesus.

But I know you mean Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit. Well I know of one "prophecy" that would imply that Jesus was Gods son. Mathew implies that the line in Hosea 11:1 is a prophecy of Jesus. Although I have my doubts if it really is a prophecy because it seems to be speaking of Israel the people leaving Egypt in Exodus. But if you assume that that it really is then Jesus must be the son of God.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

This makes sense...?

The topic is what do Christians believe?

If this sentence below makes sense, then we can find out how much Christians do believe:

All Christians do not believe....

Now if we deduct what all Christians do not believe, then we are left with practically nothing that Christians believe.

Figure that out.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, JJM!

I'd like to start off by correcting something. The Immaculate Conception is in reference to the conception of Mary not that of Jesus.

I was not aware of an alternate definition of the term, thanks. The conception by Mary's mother is not addressed in the Gospels.

But I know you mean Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit. Well I know of one "prophecy" that would imply that Jesus was Gods son. Mathew implies that the line in Hosea 11:1 is a prophecy of Jesus. Although I have my doubts if it really is a prophecy because it seems to be speaking of

Israel the people leaving Egypt in Exodus. But if you assume that that it really is then Jesus must be the son of God.

I looked up Hosea 11:1, reading before and behind to refresh the gist in my mind, and I fail to see the connection with Messianic prophecy. I am inclined to go along with what you thought about that passage being addressed to Israel. I did look up Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 9:6, and I can see where Isaiah can be viewed as associating Christ directly with God, but there is still wiggle room. After Jesus and the destruction of the Temple, the Jews did name Simon Bar Kochba as messiah. It seems the Jews were, and still are, by my understanding, looking for a political leader, not necessarily a spiritual one. I could stand to be corrected here, but I don't think the Jews viewed Bar Kochba as particularly supernatural in his "conception."

I took a few minutes to go through the appendices in my Bible (the Companion Bible is great for such things usually), but I did not find any list of the messianic prophecies. Can anyone provide a little help?

 

[JJM]

Kindest Regards, JJM![/size][/color]
I was not aware of an alternate definition of the term, thanks. The conception by Mary's mother is not addressed in the Gospels.

I looked up Hosea 11:1, reading before and behind to refresh the gist in my mind, and I fail to see the connection with Messianic prophecy. I am inclined to go along with what you thought about that passage being addressed to Israel. I did look up Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 9:6, and I can see where Isaiah can be viewed as associating Christ directly with God, but there is still wiggle room. After Jesus and the destruction of the Temple, the Jews did name Simon Bar Kochba as messiah. It seems the Jews were, and still are, by my understanding, looking for a political leader, not necessarily a spiritual one. I could stand to be corrected here, but I don't think the Jews viewed Bar Kochba as particularly supernatural in his "conception."

I took a few minutes to go through the appendices in my Bible (the Companion Bible is great for such things usually), but I did not find any list of the messianic prophecies. Can anyone provide a little help?

Sorry I've been looking for other prophecies about Jesus, but I haven't found any you haven't mentioned but I will continue to look. However I'd like to say something about the Immaculate Conception. The interpretation about it referring to Mary's birth isn't one interpretation of the term it is the only interpretation. The term was made to describe Mary. It was only used to describe Jesus by those who do not know it's true meaning. (please don't take this as an insult I've been thinking of other ways to write it and they all seem a bit rude. I feel kind of bad about it) However your right the gospels in the Bible do not speak of Mary being born. However it is in the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary which if you click on the link you will be taken to. It speaks of her birth. However I can’t seem to find who it was written by. However it is beside the fact. The term was created to describe the birth of Mary without original sin, not that of the birth of Jesus.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Ask the Vatican.

Since JJM brings in the matter of the Immaculate Conception, Mary being conceived humanly but without any trace of original sin from the very first moment of conception, I suggest you all Catholics here who are involved in this question should consult the Vatican about the incidentals of this doctrine.

Here is my contribution:

In 1854, with the Bull Ineffabilis, Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: ".. We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful".

What I have always found intriquing is that where Roman Catholics are very fervent in maintaining the perpetual virginity of Mary, before, during, and after of Jesus conception and birth -- of course this is not about Mary's conception, Protestants who are concerned about Jesus not being born with any incursion of human sexuality are also very fervent in maintaining the virginity of Mary before and during the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit, but not after Jesus' birth, meaning Mary's need not be any further a virgin afterwards: they would not care less.

Why? I think it's all a matter of emotion, in which they were brought up, the Catholics and the Protestants, that is.

What about me? I love Mary, I love Jesus, I love all men and women, whether they be virgins or not, conceived carnally or by the Holy Spirit (of which doctors can testify many pregnant women claim to be privileged with), or however brought into this world.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, JJM!

Sorry I've been looking for other prophecies about Jesus, but I haven't found any you haven't mentioned but I will continue to look.

That's OK. I'll keep an ear and an eye out to see if I can find any others.

However I'd like to say something about the Immaculate Conception. The interpretation about it referring to Mary's birth isn't one interpretation of the term it is the only interpretation. The term was made to describe Mary. It was only used to describe Jesus by those who do not know it's true meaning. (please don't take this as an insult I've been thinking of other ways to write it and they all seem a bit rude. I feel kind of bad about it)

OK, I stand corrected. Please don't feel bad, I'm generally thick skinned unless someone is blatantly rude, which I have not seen here.

However your right the gospels in the Bible do not speak of Mary being born. However it is in the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary which if you click on the link you will be taken to. It speaks of her birth. However I can’t seem to find who it was written by. However it is beside the fact. The term was created to describe the birth of Mary without original sin, not that of the birth of Jesus.

Just curious, when did the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary enter the cannon? It is not in any Protestant Bible I am familiar with, including the KJV, the 1611 reprint of the original KJV (with the Apocrypha), the Companion (effectively the KJV with commentary), the Interlinear, or the Peshitta. I know you earlier mentioned a Catholic Bible, which I do not have access to. Absolutely without any slight intended, my experience has been that the Catholic position has tended to shift as need arises. The Bull that Susma mentions is a portion of that to which I allude. Mary, at one time to the Catholics, was merely the earthly mother of Jesus. At some point it was deemed expedient to raise her in estimation in the eyes of the Catholic laity, and she became the perpetual virgin. I don't often hear the term "Queen of Heaven" used of her anymore, but it has been in the past. A very interesting and scholarly look at this aspect is presented in the book, "The Two Babylons" by Rev. Alexander Hyslop.

I realize this can become a serious point of contention between Catholics and Protestants, and I really don't wish this to turn into something that would embarass all of us. There are some that view this forum looking for ammunition in their personal war against Christianity in general. Might I suggest we keep the discussion focused on the things we can and do agree on? Besides, there is enough wisdom to go around that is the same or at least similar from both perspectives. It is that wisdom that makes Christianity a worthwhile path for its adherents.

 

[JJM]

Kindest Regards, JJM!That's OK. I'll keep an ear and an eye out to see if I can find any others.

OK, I stand corrected. Please don't feel bad, I'm generally thick skinned unless someone is blatantly rude, which I have not seen here.

Just curious, when did the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary enter the cannon? It is not in any Protestant Bible I am familiar with, including the KJV, the 1611 reprint of the original KJV (with the Apocrypha), the Companion (effectively the KJV with commentary), the Interlinear, or the Peshitta. I know you earlier mentioned a Catholic Bible, which I do not have access to. Absolutely without any slight intended, my experience has been that the Catholic position has tended to shift as need arises. The Bull that Susma mentions is a portion of that to which I allude. Mary, at one time to the Catholics, was merely the earthly mother of Jesus. At some point it was deemed expedient to raise her in estimation in the eyes of the Catholic laity, and she became the perpetual virgin. I don't often hear the term "Queen of Heaven" used of her anymore, but it has been in the past. A very interesting and scholarly look at this aspect is presented in the book, "The Two Babylons" by Rev. Alexander Hyslop.

I realize this can become a serious point of contention between Catholics and Protestants, and I really don't wish this to turn into something that would embarass all of us. There are some that view this forum looking for ammunition in their personal war against Christianity in general. Might I suggest we keep the discussion focused on the things we can and do agree on? Besides, there is enough wisdom to go around that is the same or at least similar from both perspectives. It is that wisdom that makes Christianity a worthwhile path for its adherents.

The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary isn't in the Cannon. It's part of the apocrypha (Note: The Apocrypha you speak of isn't considered Apocrypha by the Catholic church so when I use the term I mean Ones that aren't in our Bible.) but I believe it was only kept out because it would go in the front and the early church leaders wanted to stress that the new testament is about Jesus. Also the Gospel that is attributed to James (although he didn't write it) which is also apocrypha, the author writes of Mary in a way that Catholic view her now. It was most likely written in the early 2nd century A.D. that only about 40 (I think maybe 60) years after the last of the original disciples died. So it is hardly a new concept. And I believe the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary was written before then so it could hardly be new especially because Her virginity is mentioned in the Gospels that are in the Bible.

I'd like to say that it has not been the Catholic Bible that has been adding books but rather the Protestants that seem to take them out and please don't call what Susma wrote Bull I take that very seriously. Most of those thigns are not creating Ideas but rather making old ones efficial. "As for Queen of heaven" this term is used to Show that she is the most influential of the saints. (Saint= Someone in heaven.)

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Nothing almost remains.

(...)
I am searching for answers from open minded Christians and I'm sure there are many other points that could be included for discussion. I do believe that Christ's life and teachings can be the basis for a spiritually enlightened and fullfilling life.

In Western Europe peoples who had lived centuries the Christian faith are now so open minded that everything practically of Christian beliefs and practices have gone out of their minds. Now the churches are empty of worshippers but flowing with tourists. So, beware, you might end up so open minded that everything you used to harbor in your mind and heart before escapes and leave not to return ever, except the memory.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, JJM!

I'd like to say that it has not been the Catholic Bible that has been adding books but rather the Protestants that seem to take them out

Please, JJM, allow us to keep this friendly and on an even keel. I respect you and your opinions very much, and I want to remain on friendly terms. This is a difficult discussion under the best of circumstances, and I really wish to insure that it does not disintegrate. That would spoil the purpose of this particular thread. The Buddhists cooperate through their differences. The Wiccans cooperate through their differences. The Atheists cooperate through their differences. And how many point to the Christians and say, "see, they can't even find points of agreement amongst themselves, in no time they are at each others' throats." This thread seems to me the perfect place to demonstrate that Christians can find points of agreement, and can get along even when they disagree.

The canon of the Bible was established by the Catholic church not long after its official recognition and organization by the Roman government under Constantine. I don't recall all of the details offhand, but there was a council (Council of Laodicea?) convened that determined what books were to be included and which were to be dismissed. This established the canon of the Bible, circa somewhere between 313-325 AD. In other words, the Catholic church had the say in what books went into and which were left out, the Protestants did not even exist until Martin Luthur some 1300 or so years later. The Arian (Aryan?) controversy stems from this period (325 +/-). Arius was deemed a heretic and run out of town on penalty of death (demonstrating the degree of political power the newborn Catholic church wielded even then) because his views and teachings were contrary to that endorsed by the new church political establishment. If the Protestants left anything out, it was the Apocrypha I mentioned after the first printings of the KJV, the rest were excluded long before.

and please don't call what Susma wrote Bull I take that very seriously.

I sincerely hope this is an attempt at humor that I don't fully understand. What Susma quoted is a Papal BULL. I did not call it "bull", it is named Bull (By the POPE).

"As for Queen of heaven" this term is used to Show that she is the most influential of the saints. (Saint= Someone in heaven.)

This is a discussion I really do not wish to engage here. If you can find the book I mentioned (available at any good Christian bookstore), and just read the chapter about the Queen of Heaven. Then look at the archeological reality on display in museums throughout the world. Then consider the comparative religion studies that concern pagan practices of the ancient world. Then we might be able to rationally discuss this subject without you believing that I am somehow attacking your faith for some perverse pleasure. If I may assure you, that is something I would never do. And it is for that reason that I will not address this issue here in this thread until you have some familiarity with the subject matter beyond the specific dogma of your religion.

I really want to stress the similarities across Christianity, otherwise we will degrade into the same dogmatic arguments that have cost the lives of millions over the centuries. If one cannot learn to tolerate others' beliefs, then one is just as likely to fly a highjacked airliner full of innocent civilians into a skyscraper, because "they are wrong, and we are right, so we will do God a favor by killing all of these heretics." It is a no win situation, if one cannot overcome hatred with love, and express forgiveness in the form of tolerance, just as JESUS taught.

Again, I respect you, and value your opinions, and appreciate where you are coming from. Please allow me the courtesy of being able to respectfully disagree. We can agree to disagree, and still remain friends.

Most sincerely and respectfully yours, juan

 

[JJM]

I do not feel that you where attacking my faith. You don't seem like the kind of person to do that. I quickly went on the defensive because I often get accusations about the beliefs of the Catholic Church and I feel pointing out facts is the best why to combat ignorance about my religion. (Not saying that you’re ignorant. Sorry another one of those rude sentences.) It wasn't meant harshly I was just saying things. As for the Bull comment I thought that only referred to the seal used to close letters and other Documents I didn't realize the entire statement was called Bull. Council of Laodicea 364 A.D. Just thought you’d like to know the year.

Yes I know that Protestants didn't exist until Martin Luther however to the best of my understanding many books where taken out of the Bible by Protestants after his time. Kind of similar to what is currently happening with the Song of Solomon. I could be wrong and if anyone has any evidence against it I'd like to know for me advancement in knowledge even if it proves me wrong is a step forward.

I'll try and get a copy of that book but I must admit it will be a while before I'm able to read it. There is something I'd like to ask. And sense we are searching for common Ground here I thought we could start with this. A friend of mine was trying to tell me that the Passion (which I haven't seen) will not appeal very well to Protestants because it only shows like 12 seconds of his resurrection. I read to explain that because the movie was called "the passion" It wasn't necessary to show the resurrection at all but he didn't want to hear it. SO what do you think do Protestants focus less on the Death of Christ and more on the resurrection? I'd say that in The Catholic faith it is about even.

Just thought we could Try and find common ground on what is the most important part of the Religion.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

What do you think?

Well, Brother Shih, what do you think?

In my own case, I seem to not anymore get agitated over doctrinal opposition and devotional differentiation between Catholics and Protestants. Is that a sign that I have achieved some sort of Nirvanic indifference in regard to the question whether the Catholic Church is the one true to Jesus Christ or the Protestant churches.

There is a lot of emotion involved in all the controversies. If you remove the emotion, then both sides can discuss like two judges evaluating the merits of the same beauty contest candidates.

Like also the merits of this or that hairdo, cuisine, couture? The issue of religion is very similar to the discourse of hairdo, cuisine, and couture. Important thing is that hair gets done in some pattern whatever, cuisine is about edible food, and couture deals with covering the body for comfort, warmth, modesty, and sense of beauty.

Once all Christians get to be postgraduates, then there would be no more heated discussions verging on at least ruffled temper.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, JJM, and thank you!

I do not feel that you where attacking my faith. You don't seem like the kind of person to do that. I quickly went on the defensive because I often get accusations about the beliefs of the Catholic Church

I really do understand. I see it all the time. I think it is a horrible symptom of blind passion, and it cuts both ways.

and I feel pointing out facts is the best why to combat ignorance about my religion.

Likewise.

As for the Bull comment I thought that only referred to the seal used to close letters and other Documents I didn't realize the entire statement was called Bull.

There is always the possibility I am mistaken. I understand that many of the decrees issued by the Pope to establish the Church's official position are called a Bull.

Council of Laodicea 364 A.D. Just thought you’d like to know the year.

You are correct. That was the council that established the first day of the week, Sunday, as the day of worship. The council of Nicea (I often confuse the two) was the one I meant, establishing the official canon, and "settling" the Arian controversy. 325 AD. It also established the observance of Easter to replace Passover. Sorry for my shoddy scholarship, it was late and I was sitting up with my sick dog.

Kind of similar to what is currently happening with the Song of Solomon.

I'm afraid I am am not familiar with what it is you are referring to. My Bibles all contain the Song of Solomon.

I could be wrong and if anyone has any evidence against it I'd like to know for me advancement in knowledge even if it proves me wrong is a step forward.

This is an attitude I share. The trick is in being able to present disagreement in a polite and civil manner, so there are no hurt feelings.

And sense we are searching for common Ground here I thought we could start with this. A friend of mine was trying to tell me that the Passion (which I haven't seen) will not appeal very well to Protestants because it only shows like 12 seconds of his resurrection. I read to explain that because the movie was called "the passion" It wasn't necessary to show the resurrection at all but he didn't want to hear it.

I think your friend would do well also to learn about dealing with others' sensitivities. How can one understand where another is coming from without allowing them an opportunity to express their opinions? Sealing one's mind from other possibilities is the direct road to intolerance, and the "traditions of men" that Jesus actively preached against.

SO what do you think do Protestants focus less on the Death of Christ and more on the resurrection? I'd say that in The Catholic faith it is about even.

I can speak of myself specifically, and Protestants as a whole only generally. Generally, I think Christians as a whole do not care to look on the ugly stuff. They are content to see Jesus in swaddling clothes in a manger, or triumphant after the resurrection. By and large, most in my experience do not dwell on the pain and suffering He endured to accomplish His mission. "He suffered" is sufficient, rather than realizing in depth and detail what that meant. Then there are some that focus too intensely on the suffering, disregarding the overwhelming joy of His triumph in succeeding.
Jesus led his life as an example to be followed. Then He was offered as the "once for all" sacrifice, ending the requirement for the animal sacrifice for propitiation of sin. If the Bible account is true, and external evidence will not be forthcoming, the Temple veil was torn in two from top to bottom, exposing the inner santuary to the congregation when Jesus gave up the ghost. This (symbolically) opened the door to heaven directly to the faithful individual, instead of through the priesthood and religious system. Jesus then according to 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6, descended to hell to release the righteous and preach the good news that death was overcome (alluded to in the Apostle's Creed), and resurrected on the third day to proclaim to His followers that He was successful in His mission. He walked with and talked among them, teaching them further truth, for 40 days, after which he ascended to take his place at the right hand of the Father and to send the Comforter to the faithful.
This is a very simple overview. And there are those that take exception to any number of points within, such as the claim that Jesus' body was stolen, or that he was "poisoned" with some drug that rendered him "as dead". Of course, there is no way in this existence to verify that he went into the "prison of death", overcame the bonds of death, or ascended. These are matters of faith.
The entire Christian faith hinges, in my opinion, on acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus (the purpose of the movie, although I have not seen it yet), the overcoming of death and the promise of the resurrection. Without these things, the New Testament is merely another collection of morality myths, no better or worse than any of the others offered around the world.

Just thought we could Try and find common ground on what is the most important part of the Religion.

SO, that is my take on the matter. What is yours?