Without the Resurrection, Jesus is another failed Jewish messiah.
Losin' my religion
29,782 Views |
572 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Sam Lowry
This is not unheard of in Churches at all. A lot of Protestant churches are so weakened today, that they don't take much of a stand on anything within the church membership, but there are a couple I've attended that counseled NOT to take communion if you have an unrepentant sin or an unreconciled greivance with another, hindering your communion. Most don't but, one Baptist church would tell you better not to participate if you haven't been baptized, but would go no further than that and left it to you.Coke Bear said:This is not the case. He is not denying her from mass, he is stating that until she publicly repents and goes to confession, she should be denied the Eucharist.Porteroso said:
This is a Catholic denying a person communion with God. You or I can disagree on whether you need a priest to commune with God or not, but that's irrelevant.
This didn't decision was not a rash jump to judgement. The Archbishop has met with NP and discussed the abortion topic several times. When he took office in SF, he began praying for her conversion on this issue. He has attempted to reach out to her again (after comments after the leak) and she has will not respond to him.
Per Canon Law, can. 383, 1, he not only has the right, but also the responsibility to be "concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to his care" which is the archdiocese of SF, Pelosi's home diocese.
The Archbishop stated in the Notification that her public stance on abortion
"those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them" (cf. Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life [November 24, 2002], n. 4, 1). A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons "are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (Code of Canon Law, can. 915)."
Since the Last Supper, confirmed in Acts and practiced for the last 2000 years, the Eucharist is the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.
Receiving the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin in also committed another mortal sin and potentially disastrous for one's soul.
1 Corinthians 11:27, 29-30:
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner (in the state of mortal sin) will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Shoot, about 50 years back, growing up, the Marlin Church of Christ kicked a woman out of the church who was unmarried, but living with another man. They had been warning her about the relationship for months, if not longer and they finally put down the hammer. A Calvary Chapel in Arlington did the exact same thing a bit over a decade ago where I attended. The pastor there didn't warn them for months though. When confronted they simply refused to not live together, and he kicked them out right on the spot. Not just denying communion, but fellowship.
Easier for Catholic haters to believe in falsehoods.RMF5630 said:The Pope is only infallible on dogma or doctrine when speaking "ex cathedra", that is when exercising the office of pastor and "he defines... a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised to him by St Peter". It does not mean everything he says is correct, that he never sins or is perfect. The concept that Rome is the final arbiter is as old as the Church, Saint Augustine said "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).BearN said:C. Jordan said:The Catholic Church disagrees.BearN said:
Pro-Life is about being for saving the lives of innocent children.
It is also about believing there are some crimes so heinous, and some murderers that have no regard for earthly laws, courts, and human decency, that the convicted deserves to be remanded to a higher court than what exists on this earth. There is only one way to do that. Send them on to meet their maker.
There is zero inconsistency in believing that abortion is murder while also believing that the most heinous murderers should pay the ultimate price.
Why do you hold life in such low regard that you think otherwise?
It's against both.
In theory, you're correct. However, there are huge racial and social discrepancies in how capital punishment is administered in this country.
Well, I was talking about the Biblical view. What does the Catholic Church have to do with Biblical authority? The popes run the show there, not Scripture. I'll bet you for every pope that was is against capital punishment, there were 50 for it. So much for papal infallibility.
I do not expect this to be accepted here, but that is how it works.
Let them have their fun....means nothing .
It was a philosophical "what if" discussion. You don't have academic discussions on subjects that allow you to stretch your thought processes? Why does every post have to be a Manifesto with you?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, you know, salvation - the whole point of Jesus? Of Christianity? What I've been talking about this whole time??RMF5630 said:That is an interesting way to put it. I would have to defer to the message. What he said, the scriptures/prophecies and the second part of the equation, for Catholics anyway, is how I live my life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That wasn't my question - would your belief about the state of OUR SALVATION change if the resurrection wasn't true?RMF5630 said:Yes, I did.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You didn't answer my question.RMF5630 said:And if you learned it didn't, it was a parable. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack Could you still believe that God sent his son with the same message and had the same impact on the world? Would it change how and what you worshiped?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?RMF5630 said:The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?RMF5630 said:You took one line of an 8 page discussion on the Bible and a question a Moslem asked me 25 years ago and turned it into a faith statement. If you would read the other 10 or so posts you would see the context of the discussion was does the Bible HAVE to be literal. Obviously, you believe so. I do not, as it does not impact the way I live my life. I am done with this.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It has nothing to do with what I believe. If it is true that your beliefs do not require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then it is definitional/logically correct to say your beliefs aren't Christian. Cursing doesn't change that fact.RMF5630 said:Believe what you will. I don't give a ***** Whether you think I am Christian or not is irrelevant. Direct enough?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, no, you said exactly that: "Some facts are documrntable[sic], there was a Census. Pilate existed. Etc... But some also seem to be parables or hyperbole, such as walking on water, calming the storm, fisher of man, even resurrection". Was this in error?RMF5630 said:No, what I said was that IF it turned out that it was a parable it would not change my belief or how I live my life. I don't need miracles to "cement" my belief system. That is different than saying I don't believe it happened.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Weren't you on another thread, saying the resurrection of Jesus seems more of a parable or hyperbole than actual historic fact? How does that jibe with Catholic church dogma, and hence, with your standing with regard to communion?
This came out of a conversation with a Moslem friend of mine that I used to share an office. We used to discuss religion. This was in the 90's, I was less than 5 years back from Desert Storm, so I had some conversations over there as well.
He said he liked how logical Islam was and that it did not rely on supernatural leaps of faith. He also put to me the question if the requirement of "miracles" is a sign of strong or weak faith? He believed weak faith, if you need some type of supernatural occurrence to convince you it is God. I said the point was moot, it would not impact my believe, where I worship or how I live my life.
That set some people off, that I was not a Christian. But, based on past conversations ranging from the QB choice at BU to Ukraine to Religion, I could say the sky is blue and they would say I was an idiot...
Also, it would be correct to say that if your beliefs don't require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then your beliefs are definitely not Christian.
I'm not asking you to give a **** about what I believe. You should give a **** about what is truth, though.
If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.
The basis of the question was that the Koran is very logical, you can find and follow quite easily. My Moslem friend used this to show that it was superior to the Bible. Why? Because the Bible required believe in supernatural events. Events that could not be proved and a lot that went against what we know from science. After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am.
Does that make sense? It is not an argument over what I believe, it is a "what if" from a Moslem with a logical Koran under his arm. Would you abandon Christ's message if the miracles did not take place?
"After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, that God sent his son, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am."
If I found out it was not true, it would not change a thing I do. I would not go running to the Koran. I would not abandon the believe in God. I would not go looking for a new moral code.
The question was asked by a Moslem to make his religion more attractive, get it? You keep coming back to fundamental arguments of the Christian Faith.
By your response to all this, I have to believe you would walk away and look for something else.
You did say you believe salvation is possible only through the resurrected Jesus, right? So if he really didn't resurrect, how does that not change your belief about the state of our salvation?
The one fact that is inescapable is that he, his message and his followers changed the world. OldBear brought up an interesting point that people died not for his word, but for the believe he rose again. Which plays into my point of changing the world.
I do not think I would defer to Islam which is where my buddy was trying to lead me. If I was forced to look at another religion, I think I would go back to Judaism since that was the original. Interesting thought process, when thought about in terms of salvation... Maybe tequila! : )
Yikes. It's alarming that you didn't understand the implication of there being no miracles on your Christian beliefs right away.
It being a "what if" discussion doesn't affect what I said.RMF5630 said:It was a philosophical "what if" discussion. You don't have academic discussions on subjects that allow you to stretch your thought processes? Why does every post have to be a Manifesto with you?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, you know, salvation - the whole point of Jesus? Of Christianity? What I've been talking about this whole time??RMF5630 said:That is an interesting way to put it. I would have to defer to the message. What he said, the scriptures/prophecies and the second part of the equation, for Catholics anyway, is how I live my life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That wasn't my question - would your belief about the state of OUR SALVATION change if the resurrection wasn't true?RMF5630 said:Yes, I did.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You didn't answer my question.RMF5630 said:And if you learned it didn't, it was a parable. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack Could you still believe that God sent his son with the same message and had the same impact on the world? Would it change how and what you worshiped?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?RMF5630 said:The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?RMF5630 said:You took one line of an 8 page discussion on the Bible and a question a Moslem asked me 25 years ago and turned it into a faith statement. If you would read the other 10 or so posts you would see the context of the discussion was does the Bible HAVE to be literal. Obviously, you believe so. I do not, as it does not impact the way I live my life. I am done with this.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It has nothing to do with what I believe. If it is true that your beliefs do not require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then it is definitional/logically correct to say your beliefs aren't Christian. Cursing doesn't change that fact.RMF5630 said:Believe what you will. I don't give a ***** Whether you think I am Christian or not is irrelevant. Direct enough?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Well, no, you said exactly that: "Some facts are documrntable[sic], there was a Census. Pilate existed. Etc... But some also seem to be parables or hyperbole, such as walking on water, calming the storm, fisher of man, even resurrection". Was this in error?
Also, it would be correct to say that if your beliefs don't require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then your beliefs are definitely not Christian.
I'm not asking you to give a **** about what I believe. You should give a **** about what is truth, though.
If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.
The basis of the question was that the Koran is very logical, you can find and follow quite easily. My Moslem friend used this to show that it was superior to the Bible. Why? Because the Bible required believe in supernatural events. Events that could not be proved and a lot that went against what we know from science. After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am.
Does that make sense? It is not an argument over what I believe, it is a "what if" from a Moslem with a logical Koran under his arm. Would you abandon Christ's message if the miracles did not take place?
"After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, that God sent his son, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am."
If I found out it was not true, it would not change a thing I do. I would not go running to the Koran. I would not abandon the believe in God. I would not go looking for a new moral code.
The question was asked by a Moslem to make his religion more attractive, get it? You keep coming back to fundamental arguments of the Christian Faith.
By your response to all this, I have to believe you would walk away and look for something else.
You did say you believe salvation is possible only through the resurrected Jesus, right? So if he really didn't resurrect, how does that not change your belief about the state of our salvation?
The one fact that is inescapable is that he, his message and his followers changed the world. OldBear brought up an interesting point that people died not for his word, but for the believe he rose again. Which plays into my point of changing the world.
I do not think I would defer to Islam which is where my buddy was trying to lead me. If I was forced to look at another religion, I think I would go back to Judaism since that was the original. Interesting thought process, when thought about in terms of salvation... Maybe tequila! : )
Yikes. It's alarming that you didn't understand the implication of there being no miracles on your Christian beliefs right away.
My point was precisely that within this "what if" discussion, you didn't stretch your thought process to realize how having no miracles actually destroys the central Christian belief and hope; and on top of that, you were unable to grasp it even as I was repeatedly pointing it out to you in our back and forth. It's just my humble opinion, and I'm not saying you aren't a Christian, but this kinda raises red flags. Just telling you the truth.
Just the truth, if the Bible was proved to be all faith building stories and not historical fact, it would not change the way I worship. You see that as catastrophic, I do not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It being a "what if" discussion doesn't affect what I said.RMF5630 said:It was a philosophical "what if" discussion. You don't have academic discussions on subjects that allow you to stretch your thought processes? Why does every post have to be a Manifesto with you?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, you know, salvation - the whole point of Jesus? Of Christianity? What I've been talking about this whole time??RMF5630 said:That is an interesting way to put it. I would have to defer to the message. What he said, the scriptures/prophecies and the second part of the equation, for Catholics anyway, is how I live my life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That wasn't my question - would your belief about the state of OUR SALVATION change if the resurrection wasn't true?RMF5630 said:Yes, I did.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You didn't answer my question.RMF5630 said:And if you learned it didn't, it was a parable. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack Could you still believe that God sent his son with the same message and had the same impact on the world? Would it change how and what you worshiped?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?RMF5630 said:The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?RMF5630 said:You took one line of an 8 page discussion on the Bible and a question a Moslem asked me 25 years ago and turned it into a faith statement. If you would read the other 10 or so posts you would see the context of the discussion was does the Bible HAVE to be literal. Obviously, you believe so. I do not, as it does not impact the way I live my life. I am done with this.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It has nothing to do with what I believe. If it is true that your beliefs do not require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then it is definitional/logically correct to say your beliefs aren't Christian. Cursing doesn't change that fact.RMF5630 said:Believe what you will. I don't give a ***** Whether you think I am Christian or not is irrelevant. Direct enough?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Well, no, you said exactly that: "Some facts are documrntable[sic], there was a Census. Pilate existed. Etc... But some also seem to be parables or hyperbole, such as walking on water, calming the storm, fisher of man, even resurrection". Was this in error?
Also, it would be correct to say that if your beliefs don't require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then your beliefs are definitely not Christian.
I'm not asking you to give a **** about what I believe. You should give a **** about what is truth, though.
If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.
The basis of the question was that the Koran is very logical, you can find and follow quite easily. My Moslem friend used this to show that it was superior to the Bible. Why? Because the Bible required believe in supernatural events. Events that could not be proved and a lot that went against what we know from science. After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am.
Does that make sense? It is not an argument over what I believe, it is a "what if" from a Moslem with a logical Koran under his arm. Would you abandon Christ's message if the miracles did not take place?
"After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, that God sent his son, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am."
If I found out it was not true, it would not change a thing I do. I would not go running to the Koran. I would not abandon the believe in God. I would not go looking for a new moral code.
The question was asked by a Moslem to make his religion more attractive, get it? You keep coming back to fundamental arguments of the Christian Faith.
By your response to all this, I have to believe you would walk away and look for something else.
You did say you believe salvation is possible only through the resurrected Jesus, right? So if he really didn't resurrect, how does that not change your belief about the state of our salvation?
The one fact that is inescapable is that he, his message and his followers changed the world. OldBear brought up an interesting point that people died not for his word, but for the believe he rose again. Which plays into my point of changing the world.
I do not think I would defer to Islam which is where my buddy was trying to lead me. If I was forced to look at another religion, I think I would go back to Judaism since that was the original. Interesting thought process, when thought about in terms of salvation... Maybe tequila! : )
Yikes. It's alarming that you didn't understand the implication of there being no miracles on your Christian beliefs right away.
My point was precisely that within this "what if" discussion, you didn't stretch your thought process to realize how having no miracles actually destroys the central Christian belief and hope; and on top of that, you were unable to grasp it even as I was repeatedly pointing it out to you in our back and forth. It's just my humble opinion, and I'm not saying you aren't a Christian, but this kinda raises red flags. Just telling you the truth.
Catastrophic to the central faith and hope of the Christian, absolutely.RMF5630 said:Just the truth, if the Bible was proved to be all faith building stories and not historical fact, it would not change the way I worship. You see that as catastrophic, I do not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It being a "what if" discussion doesn't affect what I said.RMF5630 said:It was a philosophical "what if" discussion. You don't have academic discussions on subjects that allow you to stretch your thought processes? Why does every post have to be a Manifesto with you?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, you know, salvation - the whole point of Jesus? Of Christianity? What I've been talking about this whole time??RMF5630 said:That is an interesting way to put it. I would have to defer to the message. What he said, the scriptures/prophecies and the second part of the equation, for Catholics anyway, is how I live my life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That wasn't my question - would your belief about the state of OUR SALVATION change if the resurrection wasn't true?RMF5630 said:Yes, I did.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You didn't answer my question.RMF5630 said:And if you learned it didn't, it was a parable. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack Could you still believe that God sent his son with the same message and had the same impact on the world? Would it change how and what you worshiped?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?RMF5630 said:The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?RMF5630 said:You took one line of an 8 page discussion on the Bible and a question a Moslem asked me 25 years ago and turned it into a faith statement. If you would read the other 10 or so posts you would see the context of the discussion was does the Bible HAVE to be literal. Obviously, you believe so. I do not, as it does not impact the way I live my life. I am done with this.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It has nothing to do with what I believe. If it is true that your beliefs do not require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then it is definitional/logically correct to say your beliefs aren't Christian. Cursing doesn't change that fact.RMF5630 said:Believe what you will. I don't give a ***** Whether you think I am Christian or not is irrelevant. Direct enough?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Well, no, you said exactly that: "Some facts are documrntable[sic], there was a Census. Pilate existed. Etc... But some also seem to be parables or hyperbole, such as walking on water, calming the storm, fisher of man, even resurrection". Was this in error?
Also, it would be correct to say that if your beliefs don't require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then your beliefs are definitely not Christian.
I'm not asking you to give a **** about what I believe. You should give a **** about what is truth, though.
If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.
The basis of the question was that the Koran is very logical, you can find and follow quite easily. My Moslem friend used this to show that it was superior to the Bible. Why? Because the Bible required believe in supernatural events. Events that could not be proved and a lot that went against what we know from science. After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am.
Does that make sense? It is not an argument over what I believe, it is a "what if" from a Moslem with a logical Koran under his arm. Would you abandon Christ's message if the miracles did not take place?
"After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, that God sent his son, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am."
If I found out it was not true, it would not change a thing I do. I would not go running to the Koran. I would not abandon the believe in God. I would not go looking for a new moral code.
The question was asked by a Moslem to make his religion more attractive, get it? You keep coming back to fundamental arguments of the Christian Faith.
By your response to all this, I have to believe you would walk away and look for something else.
You did say you believe salvation is possible only through the resurrected Jesus, right? So if he really didn't resurrect, how does that not change your belief about the state of our salvation?
The one fact that is inescapable is that he, his message and his followers changed the world. OldBear brought up an interesting point that people died not for his word, but for the believe he rose again. Which plays into my point of changing the world.
I do not think I would defer to Islam which is where my buddy was trying to lead me. If I was forced to look at another religion, I think I would go back to Judaism since that was the original. Interesting thought process, when thought about in terms of salvation... Maybe tequila! : )
Yikes. It's alarming that you didn't understand the implication of there being no miracles on your Christian beliefs right away.
My point was precisely that within this "what if" discussion, you didn't stretch your thought process to realize how having no miracles actually destroys the central Christian belief and hope; and on top of that, you were unable to grasp it even as I was repeatedly pointing it out to you in our back and forth. It's just my humble opinion, and I'm not saying you aren't a Christian, but this kinda raises red flags. Just telling you the truth.
I find it strange that a professed Christian would not be affected by this, and seems rather proud of it too. It'd only be an empty virtue.
You keep going into theology, as the question I addressed is how it would affect my daily life. They are two much different approaches. After reflection I would continue to worship as I do and within the structure of the Catholic Church. I would not look for something else. That is not theology, not saying what is right or wrong, Only how I would react in my day to day life. Does not seem like that difficult of a concept. I AM NOT DEBATING SCRIPTURE OR THEOLOGY.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Catastrophic to the central faith and hope of the Christian, absolutely.RMF5630 said:Just the truth, if the Bible was proved to be all faith building stories and not historical fact, it would not change the way I worship. You see that as catastrophic, I do not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It being a "what if" discussion doesn't affect what I said.RMF5630 said:It was a philosophical "what if" discussion. You don't have academic discussions on subjects that allow you to stretch your thought processes? Why does every post have to be a Manifesto with you?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, you know, salvation - the whole point of Jesus? Of Christianity? What I've been talking about this whole time??RMF5630 said:That is an interesting way to put it. I would have to defer to the message. What he said, the scriptures/prophecies and the second part of the equation, for Catholics anyway, is how I live my life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That wasn't my question - would your belief about the state of OUR SALVATION change if the resurrection wasn't true?RMF5630 said:Yes, I did.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You didn't answer my question.RMF5630 said:And if you learned it didn't, it was a parable. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack Could you still believe that God sent his son with the same message and had the same impact on the world? Would it change how and what you worshiped?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?RMF5630 said:The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?RMF5630 said:You took one line of an 8 page discussion on the Bible and a question a Moslem asked me 25 years ago and turned it into a faith statement. If you would read the other 10 or so posts you would see the context of the discussion was does the Bible HAVE to be literal. Obviously, you believe so. I do not, as it does not impact the way I live my life. I am done with this.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It has nothing to do with what I believe. If it is true that your beliefs do not require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then it is definitional/logically correct to say your beliefs aren't Christian. Cursing doesn't change that fact.RMF5630 said:Believe what you will. I don't give a ***** Whether you think I am Christian or not is irrelevant. Direct enough?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Well, no, you said exactly that: "Some facts are documrntable[sic], there was a Census. Pilate existed. Etc... But some also seem to be parables or hyperbole, such as walking on water, calming the storm, fisher of man, even resurrection". Was this in error?
Also, it would be correct to say that if your beliefs don't require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then your beliefs are definitely not Christian.
I'm not asking you to give a **** about what I believe. You should give a **** about what is truth, though.
If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.
The basis of the question was that the Koran is very logical, you can find and follow quite easily. My Moslem friend used this to show that it was superior to the Bible. Why? Because the Bible required believe in supernatural events. Events that could not be proved and a lot that went against what we know from science. After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am.
Does that make sense? It is not an argument over what I believe, it is a "what if" from a Moslem with a logical Koran under his arm. Would you abandon Christ's message if the miracles did not take place?
"After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, that God sent his son, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am."
If I found out it was not true, it would not change a thing I do. I would not go running to the Koran. I would not abandon the believe in God. I would not go looking for a new moral code.
The question was asked by a Moslem to make his religion more attractive, get it? You keep coming back to fundamental arguments of the Christian Faith.
By your response to all this, I have to believe you would walk away and look for something else.
You did say you believe salvation is possible only through the resurrected Jesus, right? So if he really didn't resurrect, how does that not change your belief about the state of our salvation?
The one fact that is inescapable is that he, his message and his followers changed the world. OldBear brought up an interesting point that people died not for his word, but for the believe he rose again. Which plays into my point of changing the world.
I do not think I would defer to Islam which is where my buddy was trying to lead me. If I was forced to look at another religion, I think I would go back to Judaism since that was the original. Interesting thought process, when thought about in terms of salvation... Maybe tequila! : )
Yikes. It's alarming that you didn't understand the implication of there being no miracles on your Christian beliefs right away.
My point was precisely that within this "what if" discussion, you didn't stretch your thought process to realize how having no miracles actually destroys the central Christian belief and hope; and on top of that, you were unable to grasp it even as I was repeatedly pointing it out to you in our back and forth. It's just my humble opinion, and I'm not saying you aren't a Christian, but this kinda raises red flags. Just telling you the truth.
I find it strange that a professed Christian would not be affected by this, and seems rather proud of it too. It'd only be an empty virtue.
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It being a "what if" discussion doesn't affect what I said.RMF5630 said:It was a philosophical "what if" discussion. You don't have academic discussions on subjects that allow you to stretch your thought processes? Why does every post have to be a Manifesto with you?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, you know, salvation - the whole point of Jesus? Of Christianity? What I've been talking about this whole time??RMF5630 said:That is an interesting way to put it. I would have to defer to the message. What he said, the scriptures/prophecies and the second part of the equation, for Catholics anyway, is how I live my life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That wasn't my question - would your belief about the state of OUR SALVATION change if the resurrection wasn't true?RMF5630 said:Yes, I did.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You didn't answer my question.RMF5630 said:And if you learned it didn't, it was a parable. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack Could you still believe that God sent his son with the same message and had the same impact on the world? Would it change how and what you worshiped?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?RMF5630 said:The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?RMF5630 said:You took one line of an 8 page discussion on the Bible and a question a Moslem asked me 25 years ago and turned it into a faith statement. If you would read the other 10 or so posts you would see the context of the discussion was does the Bible HAVE to be literal. Obviously, you believe so. I do not, as it does not impact the way I live my life. I am done with this.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It has nothing to do with what I believe. If it is true that your beliefs do not require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then it is definitional/logically correct to say your beliefs aren't Christian. Cursing doesn't change that fact.RMF5630 said:Believe what you will. I don't give a ***** Whether you think I am Christian or not is irrelevant. Direct enough?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Well, no, you said exactly that: "Some facts are documrntable[sic], there was a Census. Pilate existed. Etc... But some also seem to be parables or hyperbole, such as walking on water, calming the storm, fisher of man, even resurrection". Was this in error?
Also, it would be correct to say that if your beliefs don't require the resurrection of Jesus to actually have happened, then your beliefs are definitely not Christian.
I'm not asking you to give a **** about what I believe. You should give a **** about what is truth, though.
If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.
The basis of the question was that the Koran is very logical, you can find and follow quite easily. My Moslem friend used this to show that it was superior to the Bible. Why? Because the Bible required believe in supernatural events. Events that could not be proved and a lot that went against what we know from science. After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am.
Does that make sense? It is not an argument over what I believe, it is a "what if" from a Moslem with a logical Koran under his arm. Would you abandon Christ's message if the miracles did not take place?
"After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, that God sent his son, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am."
If I found out it was not true, it would not change a thing I do. I would not go running to the Koran. I would not abandon the believe in God. I would not go looking for a new moral code.
The question was asked by a Moslem to make his religion more attractive, get it? You keep coming back to fundamental arguments of the Christian Faith.
By your response to all this, I have to believe you would walk away and look for something else.
You did say you believe salvation is possible only through the resurrected Jesus, right? So if he really didn't resurrect, how does that not change your belief about the state of our salvation?
The one fact that is inescapable is that he, his message and his followers changed the world. OldBear brought up an interesting point that people died not for his word, but for the believe he rose again. Which plays into my point of changing the world.
I do not think I would defer to Islam which is where my buddy was trying to lead me. If I was forced to look at another religion, I think I would go back to Judaism since that was the original. Interesting thought process, when thought about in terms of salvation... Maybe tequila! : )
Yikes. It's alarming that you didn't understand the implication of there being no miracles on your Christian beliefs right away.
It's just my humble opinion, and I'm not saying you aren't a Christian, but this kinda raises red flags. Just telling you the truth.
You stated it would not change your beliefs: "what I said was that IF it turned out that it was a parable it would not change my belief or how I live my life."RMF5630 said:You keep going into theology, as the question I addressed is how it would affect my daily life. They are two much different approaches. After reflection I would continue to worship as I do and within the structure of the Catholic Church. I would not look for something else. That is not theology, not saying what is right or wrong, Only how I would react in my day to day life. Does not seem like that difficult of a concept. I AM NOT DEBATING SCRIPTURE OR THEOLOGY.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Catastrophic to the central faith and hope of the Christian, absolutely.RMF5630 said:Just the truth, if the Bible was proved to be all faith building stories and not historical fact, it would not change the way I worship. You see that as catastrophic, I do not.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It being a "what if" discussion doesn't affect what I said.RMF5630 said:It was a philosophical "what if" discussion. You don't have academic discussions on subjects that allow you to stretch your thought processes? Why does every post have to be a Manifesto with you?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yeah, you know, salvation - the whole point of Jesus? Of Christianity? What I've been talking about this whole time??RMF5630 said:That is an interesting way to put it. I would have to defer to the message. What he said, the scriptures/prophecies and the second part of the equation, for Catholics anyway, is how I live my life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That wasn't my question - would your belief about the state of OUR SALVATION change if the resurrection wasn't true?RMF5630 said:Yes, I did.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You didn't answer my question.RMF5630 said:And if you learned it didn't, it was a parable. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack Could you still believe that God sent his son with the same message and had the same impact on the world? Would it change how and what you worshiped?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So, if you believe a literal resurrection was necessary for salvation, then IF the resurrection isn't true, how would that NOT change your belief about salvation?RMF5630 said:The resurrection offers that sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation. Catholics, including me, believe in the resurrection of Jesus. None of that was what the conversation was about. The conversation was a "what if" and how it impacts you. But, you seem stuck on three words out of 8 pages. What it matters to you, I have no idea. We are not going to agree if this conversation is going where I expect.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Okay, let's be clear. Do you believe that our salvation is only possible through the actual, literal death and resurrection of Jesus?RMF5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:RMF5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If it would change your belief, then your belief system actually does require a literal miracle. The miracle isn't "cementing" the belief as you suggested, it is foundational to it. It can't exist without it. That's my point.
The basis of the question was that the Koran is very logical, you can find and follow quite easily. My Moslem friend used this to show that it was superior to the Bible. Why? Because the Bible required believe in supernatural events. Events that could not be proved and a lot that went against what we know from science. After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am.
Does that make sense? It is not an argument over what I believe, it is a "what if" from a Moslem with a logical Koran under his arm. Would you abandon Christ's message if the miracles did not take place?
"After much thought, my answer was NO. It would not change what I believe, that God sent his son, the message Christ has and the structure of the Church for worship and the impact his message had on the world would be enough to stay where I am."
If I found out it was not true, it would not change a thing I do. I would not go running to the Koran. I would not abandon the believe in God. I would not go looking for a new moral code.
The question was asked by a Moslem to make his religion more attractive, get it? You keep coming back to fundamental arguments of the Christian Faith.
By your response to all this, I have to believe you would walk away and look for something else.
You did say you believe salvation is possible only through the resurrected Jesus, right? So if he really didn't resurrect, how does that not change your belief about the state of our salvation?
The one fact that is inescapable is that he, his message and his followers changed the world. OldBear brought up an interesting point that people died not for his word, but for the believe he rose again. Which plays into my point of changing the world.
I do not think I would defer to Islam which is where my buddy was trying to lead me. If I was forced to look at another religion, I think I would go back to Judaism since that was the original. Interesting thought process, when thought about in terms of salvation... Maybe tequila! : )
Yikes. It's alarming that you didn't understand the implication of there being no miracles on your Christian beliefs right away.
My point was precisely that within this "what if" discussion, you didn't stretch your thought process to realize how having no miracles actually destroys the central Christian belief and hope; and on top of that, you were unable to grasp it even as I was repeatedly pointing it out to you in our back and forth. It's just my humble opinion, and I'm not saying you aren't a Christian, but this kinda raises red flags. Just telling you the truth.
I find it strange that a professed Christian would not be affected by this, and seems rather proud of it too. It'd only be an empty virtue.
What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
But a miraculous resurrection from the dead, nonetheless?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Literal, not parable?
Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
John the Apostle, and Jesus himself, said that the Resurrection was physical and not just spiritual, but what would they know?
This comment makes no sense.RMF5630 said:Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
First of all, the discussion involved only the Christian view.....because that's the topic of the discussion, the Christian view - how the miracle of Jesus' resurrection is essential to the Christian faith and hope. So by staying focused on that, that deserves the criticism of "being stuck" on it or "locked in a one-track discussion" as if that's a fault?
Secondly, I'm not Baptist. Regardless, it doesn't even matter, because the view being expressed is the central belief of all of Christianity. Jesus' literal death and resurrection as the only means to our salvation (atonement + eternal life for those who want to be specific) isn't a narrow interpretation of a single Christian denomination. In fact, ANY other view that disagrees with this is NOT Christian, full stop. It's not Catholic, either.
And this view being expressed.....it's YOUR own view as a Catholic, isn't it? What, precisely, have I said that doesn't agree with your belief? The point of all this was to show that your claim that miracles don't matter to your beliefs is wrong, if you believe that the risen Jesus is essential to your faith.
Thirdly, this never had anything to do with "exploring why others believe the way they do". This specifically had to do with the inconsistency in YOUR belief, not anyone else's, nor with any curiosity about their beliefs whatsoever. Please re-read the thread if you have any doubts.
Finally, regarding your comment "believe me, I tried" in the context of only discussing Christian beliefs and not talking about others' beliefs and why they believe them - again, that had nothing to do with the point I was making, so why you feel I failed in some way by not talking about something that had nothing to do with my point, is beyond me.
Yes, it did have to do with exploring believes. The whole thread is about exploring believes, what do think "what if" means????? I re-explained it to you numerous ways, but you keep coming back to if one point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This comment makes no sense.RMF5630 said:Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
First of all, the discussion involved only the Christian view.....because that's the topic of the discussion, the Christian view - how the miracle of Jesus' resurrection is essential to the Christian faith and hope. So by staying focused on that, that deserves the criticism of "being stuck" on it or "locked in a one-track discussion" as if that's a fault?
Secondly, I'm not Baptist. Regardless, it doesn't even matter, because the view being expressed is the central belief of all of Christianity. Jesus' literal death and resurrection as the only means to our salvation (atonement + eternal life for those who want to be specific) isn't a narrow interpretation of a single Christian denomination. In fact, ANY other view that disagrees with this is NOT Christian, full stop. It's not Catholic, either.
And this view being expressed.....it's YOUR own view as a Catholic, isn't it? What, precisely, have I said that doesn't agree with your belief? The point of all this was to show that your claim that miracles don't matter to your beliefs is wrong, if you believe that the risen Jesus is essential to your faith.
Thirdly, this never had anything to do with "exploring why others believe the way they do". This specifically had to do with the inconsistency in YOUR belief, not anyone else's, nor with any curiosity about their beliefs whatsoever. Please re-read the thread if you have any doubts.
Finally, regarding your comment "believe me, I tried" in the context of only discussing Christian beliefs and not talking about others' beliefs and why they believe them - again, that had nothing to do with the point I was making, so why you feel I failed in some way by not talking about something that had nothing to do with my point, is beyond me.
Actually, my comment is pretty consistent with what I wrote. You want to throw in American Indians, wait I did. (I did early on with the Iroquois creation story). Crickets. I brought up Moslem and my friends questions. Ignored. I brought up Judaism. We discuss different Protestant groups. Yet, your contribution is Yes or No are you a Christian and is the resurrection literal. Next time should I name it "Contemplative Religious Scenarios"?
Yeah, I completely agree. It's interesting to listen to what draws a person towards a particular religion, and sect within that religion. I personally try to approach things from a faith, science, and art perspective, and it is not my faith in Jesus' bodily resurrection that has kept me as a Christian.RMF5630 said:Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
We should have the courage and determinate to maintain a state of resolute irresolution.
I like discussing the other religions. There are a billion Buddhist. Billion Hindu. Billion Muslims. Millions of Sikhs, Jews, Shinto among others.BaylorJacket said:Yeah, I completely agree. It's interesting to listen to what draws a person towards a particular religion, and sect within that religion. I personally try to approach things from a faith, science, and art perspective, and it is not my faith in Jesus' bodily resurrection that has kept me as a Christian.RMF5630 said:Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
We should have the courage and determinate to maintain a state of resolute irresolution.
Why do they believe what they believe as strongly as Christians? Are there commonalities? Could the majority of the world really be going to Hell or not going to Heaven because they do not believe in the resurrection? Seems a strange way for a "loving God" to operate. More than open to discussing and it does not change how I worship.
What is it that you don't understand? MY discussion with you did NOT involve exploring other beliefs, it involved YOUR inconsistency within YOUR belief. You are conflating my discussion with you with that of others.RMF5630 said:Yes, it did have to do with exploring believes. The whole thread is about exploring believes, what do think "what if" means????? I re-explained it to you numerous ways, but you keep coming back to if one point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This comment makes no sense.RMF5630 said:Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
First of all, the discussion involved only the Christian view.....because that's the topic of the discussion, the Christian view - how the miracle of Jesus' resurrection is essential to the Christian faith and hope. So by staying focused on that, that deserves the criticism of "being stuck" on it or "locked in a one-track discussion" as if that's a fault?
Secondly, I'm not Baptist. Regardless, it doesn't even matter, because the view being expressed is the central belief of all of Christianity. Jesus' literal death and resurrection as the only means to our salvation (atonement + eternal life for those who want to be specific) isn't a narrow interpretation of a single Christian denomination. In fact, ANY other view that disagrees with this is NOT Christian, full stop. It's not Catholic, either.
And this view being expressed.....it's YOUR own view as a Catholic, isn't it? What, precisely, have I said that doesn't agree with your belief? The point of all this was to show that your claim that miracles don't matter to your beliefs is wrong, if you believe that the risen Jesus is essential to your faith.
Thirdly, this never had anything to do with "exploring why others believe the way they do". This specifically had to do with the inconsistency in YOUR belief, not anyone else's, nor with any curiosity about their beliefs whatsoever. Please re-read the thread if you have any doubts.
Finally, regarding your comment "believe me, I tried" in the context of only discussing Christian beliefs and not talking about others' beliefs and why they believe them - again, that had nothing to do with the point I was making, so why you feel I failed in some way by not talking about something that had nothing to do with my point, is beyond me.
Actually, my comment is pretty consistent with what I wrote. You want to throw in American Indians, wait I did. (I did early on with the Iroquois creation story). Crickets. I brought up Moslem and my friends questions. Ignored. I brought up Judaism. We discuss different Protestant groups. Yet, your contribution is Yes or No are you a Christian and is the resurrection literal. Next time should I name it "Contemplative Religious Scenarios"?
You keep coming back to that it was a "what if?" scenario as if that changes any of my points. It doesn't. I don't know why you can't understand this.
And regarding your last paragraph - what is it about me talking about a specific point about what you said (that miracles wouldn't change your beliefs either way) that requires me to adress all the other points you made that were irrelevant to what I was discussing? Do you think there's some kind of rule where we can't focus in on a particular point you made?
You still on this?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What is it that you don't understand? MY discussion with you did NOT involve exploring other beliefs, it involved YOUR inconsistency within YOUR belief. You are conflating my discussion with you with that of others.RMF5630 said:Yes, it did have to do with exploring believes. The whole thread is about exploring believes, what do think "what if" means????? I re-explained it to you numerous ways, but you keep coming back to if one point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This comment makes no sense.RMF5630 said:Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
First of all, the discussion involved only the Christian view.....because that's the topic of the discussion, the Christian view - how the miracle of Jesus' resurrection is essential to the Christian faith and hope. So by staying focused on that, that deserves the criticism of "being stuck" on it or "locked in a one-track discussion" as if that's a fault?
Secondly, I'm not Baptist. Regardless, it doesn't even matter, because the view being expressed is the central belief of all of Christianity. Jesus' literal death and resurrection as the only means to our salvation (atonement + eternal life for those who want to be specific) isn't a narrow interpretation of a single Christian denomination. In fact, ANY other view that disagrees with this is NOT Christian, full stop. It's not Catholic, either.
And this view being expressed.....it's YOUR own view as a Catholic, isn't it? What, precisely, have I said that doesn't agree with your belief? The point of all this was to show that your claim that miracles don't matter to your beliefs is wrong, if you believe that the risen Jesus is essential to your faith.
Thirdly, this never had anything to do with "exploring why others believe the way they do". This specifically had to do with the inconsistency in YOUR belief, not anyone else's, nor with any curiosity about their beliefs whatsoever. Please re-read the thread if you have any doubts.
Finally, regarding your comment "believe me, I tried" in the context of only discussing Christian beliefs and not talking about others' beliefs and why they believe them - again, that had nothing to do with the point I was making, so why you feel I failed in some way by not talking about something that had nothing to do with my point, is beyond me.
Actually, my comment is pretty consistent with what I wrote. You want to throw in American Indians, wait I did. (I did early on with the Iroquois creation story). Crickets. I brought up Moslem and my friends questions. Ignored. I brought up Judaism. We discuss different Protestant groups. Yet, your contribution is Yes or No are you a Christian and is the resurrection literal. Next time should I name it "Contemplative Religious Scenarios"?
You keep coming back to that it was a "what if?" scenario as if that changes any of my points. It doesn't. I don't know why you can't understand this.
And regarding your last paragraph - what is it about me talking about a specific point about what you said (that miracles wouldn't change your beliefs either way) that requires me to adress all the other points you made that were irrelevant to what I was discussing? Do you think there's some kind of rule where we can't focus in on a particular point you made?
We have moved on. Would you like to discuss how God views Sikhs?
"it is not my faith in Jesus' bodily resurrection that has kept me as a Christian."BaylorJacket said:Yeah, I completely agree. It's interesting to listen to what draws a person towards a particular religion, and sect within that religion. I personally try to approach things from a faith, science, and art perspective, and it is not my faith in Jesus' bodily resurrection that has kept me as a Christian.RMF5630 said:Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
We should have the courage and determinate to maintain a state of resolute irresolution.
But the question is, is Jesus' resurrection literal, and if it weren't, would that change your beliefs regarding YOUR concept of salvation? The other guy said no. But if you believe we can have eternal life only because of Jesus' literal resurrection, doesn't the resurrection NOT being true affect that?
You replied, so I answered. Doesn't that mean you're still on this too?RMF5630 said:You still on this?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What is it that you don't understand? MY discussion with you did NOT involve exploring other beliefs, it involved YOUR inconsistency within YOUR belief. You are conflating my discussion with you with that of others.RMF5630 said:Yes, it did have to do with exploring believes. The whole thread is about exploring believes, what do think "what if" means????? I re-explained it to you numerous ways, but you keep coming back to if one point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This comment makes no sense.RMF5630 said:Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
First of all, the discussion involved only the Christian view.....because that's the topic of the discussion, the Christian view - how the miracle of Jesus' resurrection is essential to the Christian faith and hope. So by staying focused on that, that deserves the criticism of "being stuck" on it or "locked in a one-track discussion" as if that's a fault?
Secondly, I'm not Baptist. Regardless, it doesn't even matter, because the view being expressed is the central belief of all of Christianity. Jesus' literal death and resurrection as the only means to our salvation (atonement + eternal life for those who want to be specific) isn't a narrow interpretation of a single Christian denomination. In fact, ANY other view that disagrees with this is NOT Christian, full stop. It's not Catholic, either.
And this view being expressed.....it's YOUR own view as a Catholic, isn't it? What, precisely, have I said that doesn't agree with your belief? The point of all this was to show that your claim that miracles don't matter to your beliefs is wrong, if you believe that the risen Jesus is essential to your faith.
Thirdly, this never had anything to do with "exploring why others believe the way they do". This specifically had to do with the inconsistency in YOUR belief, not anyone else's, nor with any curiosity about their beliefs whatsoever. Please re-read the thread if you have any doubts.
Finally, regarding your comment "believe me, I tried" in the context of only discussing Christian beliefs and not talking about others' beliefs and why they believe them - again, that had nothing to do with the point I was making, so why you feel I failed in some way by not talking about something that had nothing to do with my point, is beyond me.
Actually, my comment is pretty consistent with what I wrote. You want to throw in American Indians, wait I did. (I did early on with the Iroquois creation story). Crickets. I brought up Moslem and my friends questions. Ignored. I brought up Judaism. We discuss different Protestant groups. Yet, your contribution is Yes or No are you a Christian and is the resurrection literal. Next time should I name it "Contemplative Religious Scenarios"?
You keep coming back to that it was a "what if?" scenario as if that changes any of my points. It doesn't. I don't know why you can't understand this.
And regarding your last paragraph - what is it about me talking about a specific point about what you said (that miracles wouldn't change your beliefs either way) that requires me to adress all the other points you made that were irrelevant to what I was discussing? Do you think there's some kind of rule where we can't focus in on a particular point you made?
We have moved on. Would you like to discuss how God views Sikhs?
No, I am on to other topics besides my "what if" discussion. If you would like to comment on the Billions of non-Christians and where they fit into the eternity, have at it.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You replied, so I answered. Doesn't that mean you're still on this too?RMF5630 said:You still on this?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What is it that you don't understand? MY discussion with you did NOT involve exploring other beliefs, it involved YOUR inconsistency within YOUR belief. You are conflating my discussion with you with that of others.RMF5630 said:Yes, it did have to do with exploring believes. The whole thread is about exploring believes, what do think "what if" means????? I re-explained it to you numerous ways, but you keep coming back to if one point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This comment makes no sense.RMF5630 said:Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
First of all, the discussion involved only the Christian view.....because that's the topic of the discussion, the Christian view - how the miracle of Jesus' resurrection is essential to the Christian faith and hope. So by staying focused on that, that deserves the criticism of "being stuck" on it or "locked in a one-track discussion" as if that's a fault?
Secondly, I'm not Baptist. Regardless, it doesn't even matter, because the view being expressed is the central belief of all of Christianity. Jesus' literal death and resurrection as the only means to our salvation (atonement + eternal life for those who want to be specific) isn't a narrow interpretation of a single Christian denomination. In fact, ANY other view that disagrees with this is NOT Christian, full stop. It's not Catholic, either.
And this view being expressed.....it's YOUR own view as a Catholic, isn't it? What, precisely, have I said that doesn't agree with your belief? The point of all this was to show that your claim that miracles don't matter to your beliefs is wrong, if you believe that the risen Jesus is essential to your faith.
Thirdly, this never had anything to do with "exploring why others believe the way they do". This specifically had to do with the inconsistency in YOUR belief, not anyone else's, nor with any curiosity about their beliefs whatsoever. Please re-read the thread if you have any doubts.
Finally, regarding your comment "believe me, I tried" in the context of only discussing Christian beliefs and not talking about others' beliefs and why they believe them - again, that had nothing to do with the point I was making, so why you feel I failed in some way by not talking about something that had nothing to do with my point, is beyond me.
Actually, my comment is pretty consistent with what I wrote. You want to throw in American Indians, wait I did. (I did early on with the Iroquois creation story). Crickets. I brought up Moslem and my friends questions. Ignored. I brought up Judaism. We discuss different Protestant groups. Yet, your contribution is Yes or No are you a Christian and is the resurrection literal. Next time should I name it "Contemplative Religious Scenarios"?
You keep coming back to that it was a "what if?" scenario as if that changes any of my points. It doesn't. I don't know why you can't understand this.
And regarding your last paragraph - what is it about me talking about a specific point about what you said (that miracles wouldn't change your beliefs either way) that requires me to adress all the other points you made that were irrelevant to what I was discussing? Do you think there's some kind of rule where we can't focus in on a particular point you made?
We have moved on. Would you like to discuss how God views Sikhs?
If you want to continue to tell me what I meant in my posts, there is nothing left to talk about as it was my comment so I get to tell you the context, not the other way around.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
But the question is, is Jesus' resurrection literal, and if it weren't, would that change your beliefs regarding YOUR concept of salvation?
Was Jesus' resurrection literal? My answer to this is an unsatisfying "I don't know". There is not a single human on this planet who knows the answer to this question. You must look at the evidence presented in historical texts and make the decision for yourself.
If it didn't happen, would it change my belief regarding salvation? Nope.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
But if you believe we can have eternal life only because of Jesus' literal resurrection, doesn't the resurrection NOT being true affect that?
I believe our definitions of salvation are fundamentally different. Happy to chat more on this, but I think deep, theological conversations are probably best not on a forum, lol.
You can tell me what you think the context was, but if you're wrong, then I can tell you so.RMF5630 said:No, I am on to other topics besides my "what if" discussion. If you would like to comment on the Billions of non-Christians and where they fit into the eternity, have at it.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You replied, so I answered. Doesn't that mean you're still on this too?RMF5630 said:You still on this?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What is it that you don't understand? MY discussion with you did NOT involve exploring other beliefs, it involved YOUR inconsistency within YOUR belief. You are conflating my discussion with you with that of others.RMF5630 said:Yes, it did have to do with exploring believes. The whole thread is about exploring believes, what do think "what if" means????? I re-explained it to you numerous ways, but you keep coming back to if one point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This comment makes no sense.RMF5630 said:Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
First of all, the discussion involved only the Christian view.....because that's the topic of the discussion, the Christian view - how the miracle of Jesus' resurrection is essential to the Christian faith and hope. So by staying focused on that, that deserves the criticism of "being stuck" on it or "locked in a one-track discussion" as if that's a fault?
Secondly, I'm not Baptist. Regardless, it doesn't even matter, because the view being expressed is the central belief of all of Christianity. Jesus' literal death and resurrection as the only means to our salvation (atonement + eternal life for those who want to be specific) isn't a narrow interpretation of a single Christian denomination. In fact, ANY other view that disagrees with this is NOT Christian, full stop. It's not Catholic, either.
And this view being expressed.....it's YOUR own view as a Catholic, isn't it? What, precisely, have I said that doesn't agree with your belief? The point of all this was to show that your claim that miracles don't matter to your beliefs is wrong, if you believe that the risen Jesus is essential to your faith.
Thirdly, this never had anything to do with "exploring why others believe the way they do". This specifically had to do with the inconsistency in YOUR belief, not anyone else's, nor with any curiosity about their beliefs whatsoever. Please re-read the thread if you have any doubts.
Finally, regarding your comment "believe me, I tried" in the context of only discussing Christian beliefs and not talking about others' beliefs and why they believe them - again, that had nothing to do with the point I was making, so why you feel I failed in some way by not talking about something that had nothing to do with my point, is beyond me.
Actually, my comment is pretty consistent with what I wrote. You want to throw in American Indians, wait I did. (I did early on with the Iroquois creation story). Crickets. I brought up Moslem and my friends questions. Ignored. I brought up Judaism. We discuss different Protestant groups. Yet, your contribution is Yes or No are you a Christian and is the resurrection literal. Next time should I name it "Contemplative Religious Scenarios"?
You keep coming back to that it was a "what if?" scenario as if that changes any of my points. It doesn't. I don't know why you can't understand this.
And regarding your last paragraph - what is it about me talking about a specific point about what you said (that miracles wouldn't change your beliefs either way) that requires me to adress all the other points you made that were irrelevant to what I was discussing? Do you think there's some kind of rule where we can't focus in on a particular point you made?
We have moved on. Would you like to discuss how God views Sikhs?
If you want to continue to tell me what I meant in my posts, there is nothing left to talk about as it was my comment so I get to tell you the context, not the other way around.
Look, if you're telling me that you didn't mean that miracles like the resurrection not being literally true doesn't change your belief system, that it actually does change your belief system with regard to salvation, then ok, the discussion is over. That's all I was getting at.
Not asking about what you KNOW but rather what you BELIEVE regarding Jesus' literal resurrection.BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
But the question is, is Jesus' resurrection literal, and if it weren't, would that change your beliefs regarding YOUR concept of salvation?
Was Jesus' resurrection literal? My answer to this is an unsatisfying "I don't know". There is not a single human on this planet who knows the answer to this question. You must look at the evidence presented in historical texts and make the decision for yourself.
If it didn't happen, would it change my belief regarding salvation? Nope.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
But if you believe we can have eternal life only because of Jesus' literal resurrection, doesn't the resurrection NOT being true affect that?
I believe our definitions of salvation are fundamentally different. Happy to chat more on this, but I think deep, theological conversations are probably best not on a forum, lol.
If Jesus' resurrection were not true, and it would NOT affect your belief about salvation, then your definition of salvation probably means just atonement of sin. But is that ALL you believe? Do you believe that his literal, bodily resurrection means that we can have eternal life along with him? Now here's the question: IF you do believe that, then doesn't that mean that your belief system changes, if the resurrection were NOT true?
That was the essence of the discussion here - whether or not your beliefs are changed if miracles were only parable, not literal. If a Christian believes eternal life is only possible through the literal resurrection of Jesus', then it most certainly does.
No you can't. It is my opinion. You cannot tell me what I think, as much as you seem to enjoy telling people. You are wrong. If I found the Bible to not be true, it would NOT impact the way I worship. You have no say...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can tell me what you think the context was, but if you're wrong, then I can tell you so.RMF5630 said:No, I am on to other topics besides my "what if" discussion. If you would like to comment on the Billions of non-Christians and where they fit into the eternity, have at it.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You replied, so I answered. Doesn't that mean you're still on this too?RMF5630 said:You still on this?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What is it that you don't understand? MY discussion with you did NOT involve exploring other beliefs, it involved YOUR inconsistency within YOUR belief. You are conflating my discussion with you with that of others.RMF5630 said:Yes, it did have to do with exploring believes. The whole thread is about exploring believes, what do think "what if" means????? I re-explained it to you numerous ways, but you keep coming back to if one point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This comment makes no sense.RMF5630 said:Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
First of all, the discussion involved only the Christian view.....because that's the topic of the discussion, the Christian view - how the miracle of Jesus' resurrection is essential to the Christian faith and hope. So by staying focused on that, that deserves the criticism of "being stuck" on it or "locked in a one-track discussion" as if that's a fault?
Secondly, I'm not Baptist. Regardless, it doesn't even matter, because the view being expressed is the central belief of all of Christianity. Jesus' literal death and resurrection as the only means to our salvation (atonement + eternal life for those who want to be specific) isn't a narrow interpretation of a single Christian denomination. In fact, ANY other view that disagrees with this is NOT Christian, full stop. It's not Catholic, either.
And this view being expressed.....it's YOUR own view as a Catholic, isn't it? What, precisely, have I said that doesn't agree with your belief? The point of all this was to show that your claim that miracles don't matter to your beliefs is wrong, if you believe that the risen Jesus is essential to your faith.
Thirdly, this never had anything to do with "exploring why others believe the way they do". This specifically had to do with the inconsistency in YOUR belief, not anyone else's, nor with any curiosity about their beliefs whatsoever. Please re-read the thread if you have any doubts.
Finally, regarding your comment "believe me, I tried" in the context of only discussing Christian beliefs and not talking about others' beliefs and why they believe them - again, that had nothing to do with the point I was making, so why you feel I failed in some way by not talking about something that had nothing to do with my point, is beyond me.
Actually, my comment is pretty consistent with what I wrote. You want to throw in American Indians, wait I did. (I did early on with the Iroquois creation story). Crickets. I brought up Moslem and my friends questions. Ignored. I brought up Judaism. We discuss different Protestant groups. Yet, your contribution is Yes or No are you a Christian and is the resurrection literal. Next time should I name it "Contemplative Religious Scenarios"?
You keep coming back to that it was a "what if?" scenario as if that changes any of my points. It doesn't. I don't know why you can't understand this.
And regarding your last paragraph - what is it about me talking about a specific point about what you said (that miracles wouldn't change your beliefs either way) that requires me to adress all the other points you made that were irrelevant to what I was discussing? Do you think there's some kind of rule where we can't focus in on a particular point you made?
We have moved on. Would you like to discuss how God views Sikhs?
If you want to continue to tell me what I meant in my posts, there is nothing left to talk about as it was my comment so I get to tell you the context, not the other way around.
Look, if you're telling me that you didn't mean that miracles like the resurrection not being literally true doesn't change your belief system, that it actually does change your belief system with regard to salvation, then ok, the discussion is over. That's all I was getting at.
only saw REM* once.....
summer 1999 retama polo field. 100 degrees.
wilco opened.
BID.
- UL
....uncts.
{ sipping coffee }
{ eating whole grain toast }
* sans Bill Berry - who none of us realized w/ the true driving force behind the band.
RIP Bill Rieflen**.
** broke the band out of their artistic torpor.
yes, torpor.
BIRD.
Bill????
summer 1999 retama polo field. 100 degrees.
wilco opened.
BID.
- UL
....uncts.
{ sipping coffee }
{ eating whole grain toast }
* sans Bill Berry - who none of us realized w/ the true driving force behind the band.
RIP Bill Rieflen**.
** broke the band out of their artistic torpor.
yes, torpor.
BIRD.
Bill????
Go Bears!
Yes I can, being that I was involved in the discussion and know the context of it too.RMF5630 said:No you can't. It is my opinion. You cannot tell me what I think, as much as you seem to enjoy telling people. You are wrong. If I found the Bible to not be true, it would NOT impact the way I worship. You have no say...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can tell me what you think the context was, but if you're wrong, then I can tell you so.RMF5630 said:No, I am on to other topics besides my "what if" discussion. If you would like to comment on the Billions of non-Christians and where they fit into the eternity, have at it.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You replied, so I answered. Doesn't that mean you're still on this too?RMF5630 said:You still on this?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What is it that you don't understand? MY discussion with you did NOT involve exploring other beliefs, it involved YOUR inconsistency within YOUR belief. You are conflating my discussion with you with that of others.RMF5630 said:Yes, it did have to do with exploring believes. The whole thread is about exploring believes, what do think "what if" means????? I re-explained it to you numerous ways, but you keep coming back to if one point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This comment makes no sense.RMF5630 said:Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
First of all, the discussion involved only the Christian view.....because that's the topic of the discussion, the Christian view - how the miracle of Jesus' resurrection is essential to the Christian faith and hope. So by staying focused on that, that deserves the criticism of "being stuck" on it or "locked in a one-track discussion" as if that's a fault?
Secondly, I'm not Baptist. Regardless, it doesn't even matter, because the view being expressed is the central belief of all of Christianity. Jesus' literal death and resurrection as the only means to our salvation (atonement + eternal life for those who want to be specific) isn't a narrow interpretation of a single Christian denomination. In fact, ANY other view that disagrees with this is NOT Christian, full stop. It's not Catholic, either.
And this view being expressed.....it's YOUR own view as a Catholic, isn't it? What, precisely, have I said that doesn't agree with your belief? The point of all this was to show that your claim that miracles don't matter to your beliefs is wrong, if you believe that the risen Jesus is essential to your faith.
Thirdly, this never had anything to do with "exploring why others believe the way they do". This specifically had to do with the inconsistency in YOUR belief, not anyone else's, nor with any curiosity about their beliefs whatsoever. Please re-read the thread if you have any doubts.
Finally, regarding your comment "believe me, I tried" in the context of only discussing Christian beliefs and not talking about others' beliefs and why they believe them - again, that had nothing to do with the point I was making, so why you feel I failed in some way by not talking about something that had nothing to do with my point, is beyond me.
Actually, my comment is pretty consistent with what I wrote. You want to throw in American Indians, wait I did. (I did early on with the Iroquois creation story). Crickets. I brought up Moslem and my friends questions. Ignored. I brought up Judaism. We discuss different Protestant groups. Yet, your contribution is Yes or No are you a Christian and is the resurrection literal. Next time should I name it "Contemplative Religious Scenarios"?
You keep coming back to that it was a "what if?" scenario as if that changes any of my points. It doesn't. I don't know why you can't understand this.
And regarding your last paragraph - what is it about me talking about a specific point about what you said (that miracles wouldn't change your beliefs either way) that requires me to adress all the other points you made that were irrelevant to what I was discussing? Do you think there's some kind of rule where we can't focus in on a particular point you made?
We have moved on. Would you like to discuss how God views Sikhs?
If you want to continue to tell me what I meant in my posts, there is nothing left to talk about as it was my comment so I get to tell you the context, not the other way around.
Look, if you're telling me that you didn't mean that miracles like the resurrection not being literally true doesn't change your belief system, that it actually does change your belief system with regard to salvation, then ok, the discussion is over. That's all I was getting at.
Never did I tell you or anyone else here what to think.
And if you truly found the Bible to not be true, and it still would not impact the way you worship, then your worship is focused only on the worship itself, rather than on the object of worship. You would not be worshiping in truth. Christians worship what is true. They do not worship what is not true.
Done, believe what you want. I don't care. I am more interested in the guy who saw REM and eating toast.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Yes I can, being that I was involved in the discussion and know the context of it too.RMF5630 said:No you can't. It is my opinion. You cannot tell me what I think, as much as you seem to enjoy telling people. You are wrong. If I found the Bible to not be true, it would NOT impact the way I worship. You have no say...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can tell me what you think the context was, but if you're wrong, then I can tell you so.RMF5630 said:No, I am on to other topics besides my "what if" discussion. If you would like to comment on the Billions of non-Christians and where they fit into the eternity, have at it.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You replied, so I answered. Doesn't that mean you're still on this too?RMF5630 said:You still on this?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What is it that you don't understand? MY discussion with you did NOT involve exploring other beliefs, it involved YOUR inconsistency within YOUR belief. You are conflating my discussion with you with that of others.RMF5630 said:Yes, it did have to do with exploring believes. The whole thread is about exploring believes, what do think "what if" means????? I re-explained it to you numerous ways, but you keep coming back to if one point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This comment makes no sense.RMF5630 said:Guy is stuck on discussing only Christian, SBC view. Any others and you are a non-Christian...BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Irrelevant to my question. Whatever it is, according to Christianity, was Jesus' literal death and resurrection the reason we can have it?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Are you seriously saying that Jesus' literal death and resurrection does not need to be true in order for us to have salvation? That it is just my "interpretation" that it does?BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What, exactly, wasn't true, and where was there no humility?Quote:
There is little truth...and certainly no humility in your comments .
Your interpretation of Salvation presented in the New Testament is simply that - an interpretation. I recommend not calling others heretics for not reading the Bible the same way you do.
What is your definition of salvation?
There are thousands of different sects of Christianity, whose views on Salvation can drastically change.
Depending on one's view on Atonement theory, a physical/bodily resurrection is not required for salvation.
Even showing curiosity to explore why others believe as they do, is not enough. Sort of locked in one-track of discussion. Believe me I tried...
First of all, the discussion involved only the Christian view.....because that's the topic of the discussion, the Christian view - how the miracle of Jesus' resurrection is essential to the Christian faith and hope. So by staying focused on that, that deserves the criticism of "being stuck" on it or "locked in a one-track discussion" as if that's a fault?
Secondly, I'm not Baptist. Regardless, it doesn't even matter, because the view being expressed is the central belief of all of Christianity. Jesus' literal death and resurrection as the only means to our salvation (atonement + eternal life for those who want to be specific) isn't a narrow interpretation of a single Christian denomination. In fact, ANY other view that disagrees with this is NOT Christian, full stop. It's not Catholic, either.
And this view being expressed.....it's YOUR own view as a Catholic, isn't it? What, precisely, have I said that doesn't agree with your belief? The point of all this was to show that your claim that miracles don't matter to your beliefs is wrong, if you believe that the risen Jesus is essential to your faith.
Thirdly, this never had anything to do with "exploring why others believe the way they do". This specifically had to do with the inconsistency in YOUR belief, not anyone else's, nor with any curiosity about their beliefs whatsoever. Please re-read the thread if you have any doubts.
Finally, regarding your comment "believe me, I tried" in the context of only discussing Christian beliefs and not talking about others' beliefs and why they believe them - again, that had nothing to do with the point I was making, so why you feel I failed in some way by not talking about something that had nothing to do with my point, is beyond me.
Actually, my comment is pretty consistent with what I wrote. You want to throw in American Indians, wait I did. (I did early on with the Iroquois creation story). Crickets. I brought up Moslem and my friends questions. Ignored. I brought up Judaism. We discuss different Protestant groups. Yet, your contribution is Yes or No are you a Christian and is the resurrection literal. Next time should I name it "Contemplative Religious Scenarios"?
You keep coming back to that it was a "what if?" scenario as if that changes any of my points. It doesn't. I don't know why you can't understand this.
And regarding your last paragraph - what is it about me talking about a specific point about what you said (that miracles wouldn't change your beliefs either way) that requires me to adress all the other points you made that were irrelevant to what I was discussing? Do you think there's some kind of rule where we can't focus in on a particular point you made?
We have moved on. Would you like to discuss how God views Sikhs?
If you want to continue to tell me what I meant in my posts, there is nothing left to talk about as it was my comment so I get to tell you the context, not the other way around.
Look, if you're telling me that you didn't mean that miracles like the resurrection not being literally true doesn't change your belief system, that it actually does change your belief system with regard to salvation, then ok, the discussion is over. That's all I was getting at.
Never did I tell you or anyone else here what to think.
And if you truly found the Bible to not be true, and it still would not impact the way you worship, then your worship is focused only on the worship itself, rather than on the object of worship. You would not be worshiping in truth. Christians worship what is true. They do not worship what is not true.