Religion IS Malware

a reply to: pthena

that's because its a false doctrine...

all anyone has to do is read the gospels and its completely obvious

Christians just hate the idea that they're beloved self proclaimed apostle is wrong so they will find anything they can to prove it right... to bad its not possible to show through the lords words... belief requires action, or its nothing but words

Only Paul preached faith alone...

that's one of the many reasons I call Christianity "Paulianity"

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

my position is that Good works become a consistent choice for Christians solely because of the work they allow Christ to do inside of them.

IF that was the case don't you think Christians would be loved all over the world? Unless Christians are just constantly making the wrong choice in the matter...

If there are no good men, all men produce evil that is stored up in their heart. This is the condition of man and the need for grace.

Again, Grace is not the doctrine of Jesus... He didn't even use the word...

Now I see your point about the works, but I fail to see how it is any different from a Good work. If a person is homeless and you can feed them you should. If a person is possessed and you can be a instrument in the process of expelling that demon you should. The fact that these works were miracles in Christ name doesn't make them not a Good work.

You're missing the point... The people who Jesus was talking about are those who choose who needed good works, charity, etc etc... Therefore, they are doing something Jesus told them not to... which is judging others

So again prophesying in his name would still be consider a Good act. You say those things don't help people, because you probably don't believe in those things. Demonic possession is real if your viewing the world from a biblical perspective. What kind of person would you be if you ignored someone in that state, especially if the Spirit was calling you to do it?

I didn't say telling people about Jesus isn't a good thing... Hell im not even Christian and I tell anyone I can about him

Take a man that has good faith in Jesus but no works... would literally walk by a homeless person without giving him a second look... Is he obeying Jesus? Nope...

How is it possible to Love Thy neighbour without works?

Simple answer, its not possible... Love requires action, just as Faith does...

Does one tell their mate they love them in words only? Of course not, it requires proof of love or it means nothing...

One can not follow his words and deny that works of faith are a part of his message...

Faith alone is following a doctrine that is apart from Christ...

Just as most of Christianity doesn't have a clue what Jesus actually said... but they know Paul's words

a reply to: Rex282
Let me try this again. It's pretty hard to put some things into words.

Let's say that since I remember the phrase "Your character is the only thing that you will keep of yourself in the resurrection," that that is my religion.

First define character: programed virtuous behavior by conscious action.

There is no ego there, no actual individuation.

Resurrection: reconstitution of life as a new being.

Therefore according to my religion, the good behavior I do as character building is not for my benefit at all but for the benefit of someone else, the "new man". That new man isn't me, but has my character traits.

So I don't think that I have a typical religion. That is if it is my religion and not some delusion. In any case I think it is.

Now what makes this different from reincarnation is that we're not talking about a fetus in the womb, because that fetus will make its own character. The "new man" is already adult with the existing character.

Now, I'll just make something up: what if when Jesus said, "they will be like angels, not marrying anymore" that means, the "New Man" actually is a combo of male/female, two characters in one new being. Like soul mated for life or whatever. I just made that up, but what if?

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WarminIndy

Are you a Calvinist? You just told us about Limited Atonement.

The key components of Quietism, as it has traditionally been characterised, are that man's highest perfection consists of a self-annihilation, and subsequent absorption, of the soul into the Divine, even during the present life. In this way, the mind is withdrawn from worldly interests to passively and constantly contemplate God. Quietists would say that the Bible describes the man of God as a man of the tent and the altar only, having no part or interest in the multitudinous affairs, pursuits, and pleasures of the world system.
Wikipedia - Quietism

I couldn't find a direct reference, but it would be a form of Quietism to disregard the suffering of the World, saying all that's necessary is for people to believe. The heck with suffering, doesn't matter. That seems wrong, and has been considered heresy by many Christian Denominations.

Wow, thank you for that, I have never heard of Quietism before. The only time I have read anything regarding being quiet is this verse "The Lord has risen up in His holy place, let all the earth be silent before Him", which I understood as peace, let all the world be in peace.

Wouldn't that be kind of like Buddhism?

I just had to mediate a disagreement between my brother and my mother, I had to tell my Christian sibling to put his sword away before he falls on it. Some people think the sword is a real sword that we can enact violence onto others, but the Bible says that the tongue is like a sword. I reminded him that when Peter cut that ear off the soldier, Jesus said "put your sword away" and then put the soldier's ear back on him.

It's very easy for some people to tell others that they should be in peace, it is quite another to actually bring peace to them. Children that are starving need to be fed, physically. They can't understand past their hunger.

Other Christians have told me that I was wrong for not condemning young women who became prostitutes. I say that they fell into for many reasons, some were pushed into it as a child, some were left without any other resources and feed their children by it. Unless we help them in a very real way, give them support with resources to be able to support themselves and their children, then we have no right to condemn them at all.

People are both physical and spiritual, if you feed one side, feed the other as well. To forget that they are created in the image of God, then we forget their life.

I don't understand this Quietism, so yes, it does seem like a bad doctrine to me.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't think my age tells you anything about me. You asked my age for what? So you could pretend to speak with authority because your older. Give me a break. What were the vows and do they mean anything to you?

Well, according to the doctrines of our faith, you are supposed to perceive of me as an elder, because I am 48 years-old, I have been established in the faith longer than you have been alive and I am actively practicing the faith.

So regardless of how you think of BuzzyWigs, as an elder in the faith, you know that according to the doctrines, you are supposed to take my advice.

1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

1 Timothy 5:2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.

1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Now take my advice, if BuzzyWigs doesn't want to hear then turn and leave. Neither you nor I can know all the circumstances in her life that led to her decisions, just as she cannot know every circumstance that led to our decisions.

Take some more advice from me, if you want to really understand like Jesus said we should have compassion, take yourself down to a homeless shelter where children are and volunteer yourself. Join Big Brothers and Big Sisters, take a child under your wing and be a mentor.

Be the change you want for the world, this stuff of ignoring the pain of others, that certainly isn't something Jesus would do.

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Sorry to play the elder card, but it seems appropriate at this moment.

a reply to: Akragon

The thief on the cross is the only example of "faith alone" being true.. Except one issue... Don't you think it would make a difference for that one man to be speaking to the Lord in person?

Paul began his ministry after the death of Jesus and Dismas and actually all of the Apostles did the same.
John wrote his letter of John 3:16 after the death of Jesus and makes no mention of works being required in salvation. If works of the flesh were required for salvation then give the list of acceptable works in which you must be saved. I know of no such list or requirements. I do however believe if one does believe in the doctrine of Christ Jesus that one will be willing to do as the Holy Spirit directs. Paul was called to preach but all people do not have that ability to do as Paul did.

On the day of Pentecost God poured out His Spirit upon all flesh but along with this outpouring were the gifts of which God gave to use as tools in His Church.

1Co 12:5-11
(5) And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. (6) And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. (7) But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. (8) For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; (9) To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; (10) To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: (11) But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

My understanding is that a Christian will be willing to do as directed by the Holy Spirit but not usurp the gifts of the Holy Spirit. What do I mean bu usurp? There are some who will insist that you meet certain requirements in joining their particular denomination. That may or may not be in accord with Jesus. If a certain group requires one to talk in tongues then that is not of God. Why is it not of God? Because it is plainly stated that talking in tongues is a gift of God. How then can one require a gift?

All works of God requires a capability to perform. The lame cannot walk and the blind cannot see. By faith they live and testify and not by works. Their faith is their gift as it is said in the scriptures that every man has a gift of faith by measure. Some greater then others but all do have a measure. But even the least have a measure of faith to testify that gift to others. Then this is accounted to them as their work.

As Dismas was crucified beside the Lord and showed his faith by his testimony to the third man, this was accounted to him as his work. As Abram burned the idols of his father it was counted to him as his work through faith. But both had to have faith to show work. Some who die in battle show no work of the kingdom of God but die in faith alone. God could not give Dismas more than any other person. That would then accuse God as being a respector of men.

The big 3 yes. The cast system of the hindu? No thanks. I guess buddhism is alright.

a reply to: WarminIndy

People are both physical and spiritual, if you feed one side, feed the other as well. To forget that they are created in the image of God, then we forget their life.

I don't understand this Quietism, so yes, it does seem like a bad doctrine to me.

I couldn't find a good description of what I meant. I'll have to construct a model. This is based on positions I held as Protestant in Protestant vs Catholic 1973-1982. This also involves Faith Alone vs Faith + Works. Mind you that this is a reconstruction of old views. The groups mentioned may not even hold these views any longer.

Roman Catholics have the doctrine of infused grace, meaning that through the sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Marriage, something, something, Last Rites, the justifying grace of God transforms the soul to a being who is worthy. Purgatory is necessary as a time of completing the grace work before the soul is ready for heaven. Justification and Sanctification are synonymous.

The Protestant position is the person accepts Christ and is Justified before God by faith alone. The Justified person then goes on to do good works with the help of God through the Holy Spirit, as a cooperation of man with God. This is Sanctification. It isn't optional. It is a moral imperative weather you get the holy tingles or not.

Since I was Protestant I would point out the obvious self-centeredness of Roman Catholicism. Heaven is rewarded to those who are completed by grace with no reference to anything done in physical life to help anyone else. Inherently immoral. Much of what is called Buddhism falls into this category too. Me and God and that's all that matters.

A Protestant is not immune from Quietism. Any one who can emotionally withdraw from the World is not immune from Quietism.

I hope that makes it more clear. My apologies to anyone who feels misrepresented.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Well, according to the doctrines of our faith, you are supposed to perceive of me as an elder, because I am 48 years-old, I have been established in the faith longer than you have been alive and I am actively practicing the faith.

Just because your older doesn't mean what your saying is accurate to Scripture.

Sorry to play the elder card, but it seems appropriate at this moment.

Just above what you said:

5 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you,but being examples to the flock.

Now I am not saying the advice you gave was bad advice. My point is you come here quoting Scripture about respecting the Elders and respecting their opinions. I have not rebuked you. I have exhorted you. I have encouraged you to look at the Scriptures and understand where I am coming from. If you think I have interpreted it wrongly as an elder you should show me using the word you shouldn't try and tell me to just accept what you say because your older. That is not what that verse means.

Be the change you want for the world, this stuff of ignoring the pain of others, that certainly isn't something Jesus would do.

This is the second time you have misrepresented what I believe. If your not even going to actually have a conversation and understand me, how are you attempting to guide me? My position is not to ignore the pain of others as I have said numerous times Good works are important, but you and I disagree on why one is to preform Good works. So if you want to teach me something I will listen, but I will also listen to God and follow his spirit and word. If what you say doesn't fit with what his word says then I simply cannot accept it

a reply to: pthena

The Protestant position is the person accepts Christ and is Justified before God by faith alone. The Justified person then goes on to do good works with the help of God through the Holy Spirit, as a cooperation of man with God. This is Sanctification. It isn't optional. It is a moral imperative weather you get the holy tingles or not.

Since I was Protestant I would point out the obvious self-centeredness of Roman Catholicism.

Actually, that's not quite accurate.
I was Baptized, Confirmed, Married, etc. in a Protestant Church - the Episcopal church - a branch of the Church of England of Henry VIII fame. It's very close to Roman Catholicism.

Also, the Catholics DO BELIEVE that both are required. I was looking up sola fide yesterday (prompted by this thread and ServantOfTheLamb's postulation). But just this morning I read an interesting story about how the American Evangelical Protestants are the ones who separated out "sola fide", and it was, ironically, the product of the guy named Crowell, a marketing expert who started "Quaker Oats". He had ties to the Moody Bible Institute.

HOW A PIONEER OF BRANDING INVENTED CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM

The Evangelicals are a different creature entirely (in terms of their philosophies).

How is the story of American capitalism also the story of modern American Christianity?

They’re cultural twins. They’re both drawing from the same set of ideas about the nature of self and society that was, frankly, new in the days after the Civil War. These are the idea of the individual being the basic unit of analysis, that individual choices are really what matters, that’s how you create yourself.

Whereas older ideas would see society as more of an organic unity, they see it as a collection of individuals.

One of the main points of my story is that the particular arrangement we see today of evangelicals’ alignment with business is not a new phenomenon. It can be traced back, specifically to the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. It was not there before. And it did not start after World War II. It really started here.

I’m also arguing against the idea that American Protestantism has always been guided by the logic of the market. That’s not true. There was a shift in American Protestantism which is connected to this other shift in economic history.

a reply to: Akragon

Speaking of Paul.
Here's a book you might be interested in, it's written about Paul by a Talmudic scholar.
Paul the Mythmaker and the invention of Christianity
www.amazon.com...

a reply to: Seede

Makes perfect sense to me. Thank you for that wonderful explanation.

Faith is not passive, even the blind man when healed by Jesus (who spit in mud and then rubbed into the man's eyes) said "I see men as trees walking".

Bartimeaus actually had to call out to Jesus to be healed. The woman with the issue of blood had to work her way through the crowd to be healed. While they had faith, they still had to exercise their faith in some way.

That's why James tells us, faith without works is dead.

Is it a work of faith to obtain salvation? On whose part? Salvation is a gift by our acceptance. The man on the cross, there was more to it than him just accepting Christ, what really happened as he was hanging there, the other man mocked Jesus and told him to make Himself come off the cross. The other man said "what has this man done? You and I deserve what we get. Remember me when you come into your kingdom."

We can place ourselves on either side, I can say that Jesus can come off the cross if He is truly who He says He is, or we can say "I deserve my punishment, so remember me".

What HAD this man Jesus done?

Act 10: 37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Can we do less? If THAT SAME SPIRIT, which raised Christ from the dead be in us, it will one day quicken our mortal bodies. And if that same spirit led Jesus into doing good works be in us, then we should be going about doing good. I can't think of anything else than that which would express our faith. We do good because not only our example did good, but that our example indwells us.

Jesus wept, why should we not?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

OK, whatever you say. I have not lorded over you in any way.

I gave you the reason why I should be considered an elder, but I see that has fallen on deaf ears. So be it.

And no, younger in the faith, you haven't exhorted me at all. I'm surprised you didn't get on here and tell me that as a woman I need to sit down and listen to you. But, I tried. You are now left to your own devices.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This is what you said in your 4th post to the thread:

Yes all I do is trust Christ, and why would I have a responsibility to contribute to the well-being of others?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I think that is something I don't understand from my position and religious background. While I did grow up in a Catholic community, I wasn't Catholic so I really don't speak for Catholics at all.

Some Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, and I think that has led to some devastating doctrines. I was once cursed and spit at by a man from The Church of Christ, because he didn't like the doctrine of tongues, as though somehow I would do some voodoo or something to him. Then he told me that Pentecostals should show what they are made of and go out to the graveyard and raise up every dead person. Hmmm...what purpose would that serve? (BTW, this is the first time I had ever heard of the word Pentecostal in regard to my faith)

But this guy was from the Church of Christ, but not all people from the Church of Christ are like that, maybe there was something emotional for him about dead people, maybe he just had a loved one who died. I don't know.

Here is an interesting statement about sola fide from Catholic.com

At the close of the last liturgical year, Pope Benedict XVI made a startling proclamation: "Luther’s expression sola fide is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love" (Wednesday Audience, Nov. 19, 2008). At first, this statement might seem to collide with Trent: "If anyone says that the godless are justified by faith alone . . . let him be anathema" (Trent, VI, canon 9). Again, "For faith, unless hope and charity are added thereto, neither unites one perfectly with Christ nor makes one a living member of his body" (Trent, VI, ch. 7).

So for Pope Benedict in 2008, apparently hope and charity are important fundamentals. It was nice to see he did away with limbo, that to me was a very sad doctrine that people believed in.

I think one of the saddest parts of that was from Tess of the D'urbervilles by Thomas Hardy. He was exposing the double standards and enforced rigid moral codes without compassion, leaving young mothers like Tess to grieve endlessly without compassion.



Tess buried her baby outside the graveyard because the vicar refused to allow her to bury it on sacred ground. She replies "to bury an innocent baby away in the night with the drunks and the suicides, a little baby who had done no sin in its little life".

Thomas Hardy was right in what he was saying. That vicar kept religious standards, but what good did it do? A million upon a million young mothers who were told their baby could only go to limbo if they were baptized, what a horrible thing.

ETA: It is apparent that I didn't grow up with liturgy. I don't even know what liturgy is, I think I have seen it when visiting other churches.

a reply to: WarminIndy

So for Pope Benedict in 2008, apparently hope and charity are important fundamentals. It was nice to see he did away with limbo, that to me was a very sad doctrine that people believed in.

Yes, and Pope Francis ALSO speaks of charity, caring for others, etc. A lot.
I really like him, and I'm not a Christian, or fan of dogmatic religion at all.
But Pope Francis, a Christian, has the message right. From his public appearances anyway....starting from the first day where he refused the Papal apartments and the "celebrity" treatment. I admire him.
I have family members who are Catholic, and others who are Protestant (Episcopalians).


And there's that passage from Corinthians so often used in wedding ceremonies:
1 Corinthians 13:13

English Revised Version
But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

Webster's Bible Translation
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Weymouth New Testament
And so there remain Faith, Hope, Love--these three; and of these the greatest is Love.

World English Bible
But now faith, hope, and love remain--these three. The greatest of these is love.

Young's Literal Translation
and now there doth remain faith, hope, love -- these three; and the greatest of these is love.

and also:

Context for 1 Corinthians 13:13

Love
…12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Cross References
Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

1 Thessalonians 1:3
We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 6:19
We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain,

Treasury of Scripture
And now stays faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: WarminIndy

So for Pope Benedict in 2008, apparently hope and charity are important fundamentals. It was nice to see he did away with limbo, that to me was a very sad doctrine that people believed in.

Yes, and Pope Francis ALSO speaks of charity, caring for others, etc. A lot.
I really like him, and I'm not a Christian, or fan of dogmatic religion at all.
But Pope Francis, a Christian, has the message right. From his public appearances anyway....starting from the first day where he refused the Papal apartments and the "celebrity" treatment. I admire him.
I have family members who are Catholic, and others who are Protestant (Episcopalians).

I went to an Episcopalian church once for Good Friday service. I have even been one time to a relative's child's First Communion (her mother was Catholic, she married my mom's cousin but they were divorced a long time ago). I was once in a Lutheran church.

I really don't know about liturgical churches, the First Communion service was painful after all the kneeling and standing and kneeling and standing.....then I was told I couldn't take Communion with them because I was not Catholic.

Then I went once with a friend that is Mormon, and they took Communion with bread and water, they let me do that also.

I was once in a Fundamental Independent Baptist church and they didn't want me back because I was "Pentecostal", a woman actually stuck her hand in my face and said "whatever" and walked away. My friends that we went with, told me that isn't how their church really is. I said "Oh yes it is, and you knew this when you invited me".

I thought to myself "Wow, if this is how we Christians really come off to the world, it's no wonder people don't like us Christians". I don't want to be a Christian that is cruel and heartless.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I really don't know about liturgical churches, the First Communion service was painful after all the kneeling and standing and kneeling and standing.....then I was told I couldn't take Communion with them because I was not Catholic.

Yes, I've been in Catholic churches for ceremonies and been advised not to join them for communion because I wasn't Catholic.
I don't believe that was ever a tenet in the Episcopal church - the thing was that people (members of the congregation) who had not been "Confirmed" would approach the altar rail with their arms crossed over their hearts - the signal for a blessing from the celebrant. After Confirmation, we were allowed to take the wafer and wine.

But there was no "ID check" - and no one was "turned away" if they went up to the altar rail and did the signal for communion (hands cupped in front of oneself).

If we were in another denomination's church, then we did what they wanted (if they told us what that was) - some allowed taking communion, others did not.

Nowadays, though, I don't think there's so much persnickitude in the church. (I do remember the Methodists, though, from going with my then-husband....they never knelt down, and that seemed strange to me.) I was taught to genuflect and all that. The celebrant would let us know when to stand, kneel, sit, etc. during the service. It was definitely choreographed.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I went to an Episcopalian church once for Good Friday service. I have even been one time to a relative's child's First Communion (her mother was Catholic, she married my mom's cousin but they were divorced a long time ago). I was once in a Lutheran church.

I really don't know about liturgical churches, the First Communion service was painful after all the kneeling and standing and kneeling and standing.....then I was told I couldn't take Communion with them because I was not Catholic.

o_O

And I went when I was in middle school to a tent revival of Southern Baptists or whatever, and it scared the S#!T out of me.
I went with my mom's permission, with a friend's family. I tell ya, the tongues and all that stuff really frightened me. Most disturbing of all was being shouted at (along with everyone else) that I'd burn in hell if I didn't go up front and "accept Christ" right that minute.
That was in the early 70s.

Nowadays, if required to choose "a church", I would choose the Unitarian Universalists. Or preferably, Buddhism.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: WarminIndy

I went to an Episcopalian church once for Good Friday service. I have even been one time to a relative's child's First Communion (her mother was Catholic, she married my mom's cousin but they were divorced a long time ago). I was once in a Lutheran church.

I really don't know about liturgical churches, the First Communion service was painful after all the kneeling and standing and kneeling and standing.....then I was told I couldn't take Communion with them because I was not Catholic.

o_O

And I went when I was in middle school to a tent revival of Southern Baptists or whatever, and it scared the S#!T out of me.
I went with my mom's permission, with a friend's family. I tell ya, the tongues and all that stuff really frightened me. Most disturbing of all was being shouted at (along with everyone else) that I'd burn in hell if I didn't go up front and "accept Christ" right that minute.
That was in the early 70s.

Nowadays, if required to choose "a church", I would choose the Unitarian Universalists. Or preferably, Buddhism.

Southern Baptists speak in tongues????? Whaaa???? Since when?

It must have been an Apostolic Pentecostal tent meeting. I was in one of those churches one time and the preacher who didn't know me actually preached over me saying that all these young whores going on dates with these drinking boys are going to hell...really, said it right over me. And then another preacher actually called me Jezebel, in church.

I was like "Darn, and I hadn't even gone a date", I was simply sitting on a row that a boy and his mother were also sitting one. She was on the other side of him.