It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by charles1952
I see the word "Reformation" and it makes me think the purpose was to reform the Church, not divide it. The Church needed reform, and did reform. We should be one Church now, no? The splitting from the church gave legitimacy to every other group who wanted to go their own way. Now we have umptyleben denominations.
On another note, after over a millenium of using the Bible as is, wasn't it a little grandiose to think that one man, or one small group of men could make those sweeping changes?
But if this is the case, how do we explain:
• do not believe that mankind is inherently evil.
If the evil is within us then we're inherently evil. If it comes from the outside, can't we call that source "the Devil?" And apparently, Gnostics do accept a devil, except they give it a different name:
• do not believe in a devil which leads people into sin.Humankind has produced enough devils of its own without having to create the fictional variety in order to explain the evil that people do against each other.
Does it matter that much if we call it a devil or a demiurge?
However, true Gnostics do accept that the biblical Jehovah is a demiurge, an evil monster who would present himself as God in order to confuse mankind with regard to what is truly right and wrong.
Further, they
any God who demands murder to appease justice is unworthy of worship or adoration.
So, there is no eternal Hell? But, if there is eternal life, where do people go after serving their sentence in Hell, Heaven? If that's true then Hell is insignificant and there is no real punishment because what is even 1000 years in Hell compared to infinity in Heaven? I'm having trouble combining the concept of eternal reward with less than eternal punishment.
do not believe in hell or final judgment. For the doctrine of hell and eternal torment are immoral beliefs, and the doctrine of final judgment perverts and distorts mercy, compassion, and forgiveness.
Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by jmdewey60
You're missing the big part where is says there a perpetual offering by gentile nations, at all times from rising to setting.edit on 24-2-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by 547000
. . . You're missing the big part . . .
Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations," Says the LORD of hosts. (NSRV)
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe
Feel free to quote the Latin and make your case using whatever ancient writer you think made these conclusions.
You are just making a naked claim without even presenting a source to show that this is currently, or ever was, held as a doctrine.
Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by 547000
Now you may argue that God ordained that the bible be without error. But this is contradicted by the fact the Martin Luther changed the canon.
No he didn't.
Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Me brainwashed?
Originally posted by vaelamin
I never understood why the catholics worship mary considering
The bible did not fall from the sky. Why is the NT canon decided the Word of God, but the OT canon is not?
And why not tell Dewey off about calling people anti-christs? Why only me? Because he agrees with you? Because you think I'm too young to know anything?
You know how easily confused I get, so please allow me to stumble my way through your description of gnostic beliefs. They:
• do not believe that mankind is inherently evil.
But if this is the case, how do we explain:
• do not believe in a devil which leads people into sin.Humankind has produced enough devils of its own without having to create the fictional variety in order to explain the evil that people do against each other
If the evil is within us then we're inherently evil. If it comes from the outside, can't we call that source "the Devil?" And apparently, Gnostics do accept a devil, except they give it a different name:
However, true Gnostics do accept that the biblical Jehovah is a demiurge, an evil monster who would present himself as God in order to confuse mankind with regard to what is truly right and wrong.
Does it matter that much if we call it a devil or a demiurge?
Do Gnostics believe in eternal life? If they do, I have more problems. Apparently justice is a virtue, but God can go too far with it:
any God who demands murder to appease justice is unworthy of worship or adoration
Further, they
do not believe in hell or final judgment. For the doctrine of hell and eternal torment are immoral beliefs, and the doctrine of final judgment perverts and distorts mercy, compassion, and forgiveness.
So, there is no eternal Hell? But, if there is eternal life, where do people go after serving their sentence in Hell, Heaven?
If that's true then Hell is insignificant and there is no real punishment because what is even 1000 years in Hell compared to infinity in Heaven? I'm having trouble combining the concept of eternal reward with less than eternal punishment.
I'd appreciate any effort you care to make in clarifying my thinking.
With respect,
Charles1952
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by 547000
The bible did not fall from the sky. Why is the NT canon decided the Word of God, but the OT canon is not?
And why not tell Dewey off about calling people anti-christs? Why only me? Because he agrees with you? Because you think I'm too young to know anything?
The bible did not fall from the sky. Correct. It was written by men who said it was the Word of God.
I can't answer why canon is chosen except that the Council at Nicea, which was made up of dozens of bishops of the various sects of Christianity, was held to come to an agreement of some kind.
I'm not a Biblical scholar, and dewey knows a bunch of stuff that I don't. I don't think he agrees with me, I think we have a respect for one another is all.
I wasn't "telling you off", I was pointing out that your new zeal and dogmatic insistence is inappropriate in this venue of discussion. Also, he explained to you why he interpreted what you said the way he did.
I didn't see it that way, and I'm not even sure I understand what he wrote to you in the commentary.
I also don't understand why you are so insistent that Catholicism is the only true way (I know that is what my uncle, a devout and zealous Catholic, also says, and he was in seminary in his 20s).
My issue with all Christian styles is their condemnation of others, their warnings of hellfire and telling people what they "should" and "must" do when they are not Christ, nor God, and neither are the people they are listening to as their "instructors."
It's not my fault people ignore the logical implications of church history.
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by 547000
It's not my fault people ignore the logical implications of church history.
No, but it is entirely your fault that you claim to know more than you really do.
Church history, the real, fullhistory is a very tricky subject requiring hours and hours and hours, years worth of hours to master; careful thought, critical thinking, research, cross-referencing, study of translations, sociological and cultural matters, anthropology, and pre-Christian philosophies. When new things are discovered, the whole picture changes even more.
You admit you are young, and were only very, very recently even exposed to religion at all! So excuse me if I don't feel the need to admire your disrespectful zeal. You have learned a teensy-weensy little bit of surface religion stuff.
There are people who've made careers, whole lifetimes of studying these things, from the earliest records of our modern humanity. You are in no position to call anyone names, and your knowledge of Protestantism is flawed, just as your knowledge of the early church is flawed.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, and you're talking about what you don't know rudely and with intolerance, and badgering people who are way past the point where you are now.
'ancient writers of Protestantism'?
How about all the people who didn't believe the church? By definition, they were Protestants. When they saw the RCC becoming a means for getting rich, controlling people, and implementing all of the pagan holidays and rituals, they protested. It's been going on forever.
Catholicism in its fullest glittering idolatry and occultism and arrogance to be the Truth and exclude or even excommunicate members is the opposite of what the earliest Christians believed.
Keep studying.
edit on 27-2-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
How come you mention a Roman Catholic Council, Nicea wildtimes
and can't see the Bible is a Catholic book?
By God given authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, Pope Damasus
decided the Canon in 382.
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by colbe
How come you mention a Roman Catholic Council, Nicea wildtimes
and can't see the Bible is a Catholic book?
By God given authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, Pope Damasus
decided the Canon in 382.
First of all, I don't study or follow the Bible precisely because it is a construct of the Catholic Church, and was not penned by God or Christ. Protestants (in the sense you are using it) used the Bible, but changed the practices and removed from them the parts that smacked of things they didn't like.
And a Pope is not given authority by God; men did that.
I can be whatever I want, colbe, thanks, and you are not in a position to tell me I'm wrong in my beliefs or "can't stay" anything.
I'm a growing, developing soul. It's not your decision to make what I can or cannot "stay" or become.
I will go by what we know of what Jesus himself said. Not some Pope or bunch of greedy bishops or Emperors or anyone else who proclaimed their sovereignty to do so.
Christian enough for ya?
What he said, and ONLY what he said. Everything else is hearsay, opinion, human conjecture, and based on ego.
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by 547000
It's not my fault people ignore the logical implications of church history.
No, but it is entirely your fault that you claim to know more than you really do.
Church history, the real, full history is a very tricky subject requiring hours and hours and hours, indeed years worth of hours to master; careful thought, critical thinking, research, cross-referencing, study of translations, sociological and cultural matters, anthropology, and pre-Christian philosophies. When new things are discovered, the whole picture changes even more.
You admit you are young, and were only very, very recently even exposed to religion at all!
There are people who've made careers, whole lifetimes of studying these things, from the earliest records of our modern humanity.
'ancient writers of Protestantism'?
How about all the people who didn't believe the Roman Catholic Church from the get-go? By definition, they were Protestants. When they saw the RCC becoming a means for getting rich, controlling people, and implementing all of the pagan holidays and rituals, they protested. It's been going on forever.
Catholicism in its fullest glittering idolatry and occultism and arrogance, claiming to be the Truth, and condemning, excluding or even excommunicating members is the opposite of what the earliest Christians believed.
Keep studying.
I don't mean to 'tell you off', I only mean to remind you that you are a learner at beginner level. A student driver, so to speak. Ask questions, use your brain and your spirit to decipher it all. It is an individual journey, and takes a long time, patience, and dedication.
edit on 27-2-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)