Catholics and Protestants -- The Reformation Revisited

Post by **Metal-Demon** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:26 am

No one still uses those "Chick Tracts" .... do they?

Man ... that is some seriously messed up shite, right there! Talk about brutal brainwashing propaganda! WOW!

Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:06 pm

There's this trend in a lot of revivalist religious movements, that calls for the banning of secular music and books, etc. I have friends that burned books that had anti-christian content, and TONS of people I know destroyed hundreds of non-christian cds.

Post by **duchess of malfi** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:12 pm

And what some consider to be anti-Christian is somewhat...strange. There was a well publicized book burning party at a church in the very conservative western part of the state a year or so ago. The main focus was Harry Potter. They also reportedly burned Shania Twain CD's. I am truly unaware of any "anti-Christian" content in either one??

www.freep.com/news/religion/nburn6_20030806.htm

Post by **dennisrwood** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:32 pm

not my beliefs...but here goes.

Harry Potter employs witchcraft. witchcraft bad. i knew someone who wouldn't watch a cartoon about space monkeys, because they talked. and talking monkeys meant evolution. so all talking animals and witchcraft is of Satan.

Shania Twain:??? i'm going to go with her willingness to vamp herself. a lot of fundamentalists have big problems with women. women are bad because they tempt men. and of course men are helpless before the temptation. just ask Swaggart or Baker. but really, compared to Spears or Aguilara...Shania is tame. now, Twain's music just plain sucks. really.
but give those cds to me fundamentalists. i will trade them in for Christian hardcore cds. like Dogwood, Plankeye, Black Eyed Sceva, etc.

Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:55 pm

That's what I was talking about...plankeye..hahaha... as far as witchcraft goes, sure, they'll burn the witchcraft books. But there's a witch craft store in my town, with an official dedicated temple to the goddess inside. But they don't say a word about that..hehehe...

Post by **dennisrwood** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:02 pm

they seem to misinterpet some scripture as well. the talking in tongues is a popular one.

Post by **Cail** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:57 pm

According to the Catechesis of the Catholic church, the church has no "official" stand on the death penalty. We seem to be a divided lot on this issue.

Post by **Baradakas** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:52 pm

apologizing for past mistakes

I won't go there.

Post by **dennisrwood** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:40 am

why not? the only way to move forward is to acknowledge mistakes of the past. ie, the inquisition. ( a lot of which was run by the civil authority, but hey...) the Crusades are another matter for another discussion. (but the last series was a bunch of thugs for hire and not associated) and we were not compliant with the nazis in WWII, but try telling anyone that. and the recent priest sex abuse scandal is being hammered out in the courts where it belongs. and most mainstream Catholics want it that way. or did you have something else in mind? it's hard to refute against what isn't given.

Post by **Avatar** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:51 am

dennisrwood wrote:why not? the only way to move forward is to acknowledge mistakes of the past.

Well said. Acknowledge them, deal with them where possible, and then move on. Quite apart from anything else, (and you know I'm no fan of any church), is the fact that while those mistakes were made, the were made by a church which in almost no way even resembles todays church.

How long will today be held accountable for the sins of the past? Learn, and move on. That's the way it should be. I mean, mostly, we're talking hundreds of years now. Every single person who had to do with those mistakes is long dead, and either rewarded or punished, if that's the way your belief runs. Aren't you guys supposed to leave it up to god anyway?

--Avatar

Post by **duchess of malfi** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:55 am

Well said, Avatar. No living person has any responsibility for things that happened hundreds of years ago. Today we can only study such past things as the Inquisition, in order to understand how they came to happen -- and to try to never commit such acts again.

Post by **Iryssa** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:23 am

Amen, Duchy...
Personally...I don't get what all the interdenominational hate is all about, either...it's stupid. Apparently many people forget about one of my favorite passages in the Bible (which I've posted before, but I'll post it again, because I think it it VERY important):

Romans 14:1-10, The Holy Bible, New International Version wrote:
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.

That's more than I posted last time I used that passage...but anyway...the point this is really getting at is that it's stupid to squabble over doctrinal differences; believe what you will about those "lesser" issues, but whatever you do, do so out of love for God. Keep your heart in the right place. God knows when you have it there.

So, my stand on this whole issue? There are probably as many "saved" Catholics as there are Protestants, as many saved Baptists as there are Anglicans, etc. etc. etc. Preaching hate for other denominations is not only stupid, it goes directly against what the Bible teaches.

Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:16 pm

As I read it, that stretches across denominations, and then beyond them into other religions entirely.
All things serve the lord, yes?

Post by **Cail** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:38 pm

That'st certainly the way I see it.

Post by **duchess of malfi** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:16 am

I read it that way as well -- give love and respect to all of God's children.

Post by **Cybrweez** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:04 pm

Iryssa, you make a good point. Basically, there are some doctrines that are black and white in the Bible, such as Christ's death and resurrection, that if you don't believe in, you really can't call yourself a Christian. Unfortunately, what constitutes a black and white issue, or a grey issue is different for each person. We can agree to disagree on the grey issues, but we can't agree on what the grey issues are. That's what leads to problems.

JemCheeta, Paul is writing to Christians about other Christians. I don't think all things, or people, serve the Lord.

Post by **Iryssa** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:08 am

Totally with you on all points, Cybr...I would say that the proper method for baptism ("sprinkle" or "dunk") is a grey area, but one of my best friends considers it quite crucial...if we all had perfectly cultivated humility, this still wouldn't lead to problems, I don't think...but, well, we don't *rueful grin*

And I do agree that Paul is writing "to Christians about other Christians"...I've always taken his use of the word "brother" as proof of this, as Paul, with all the precision native to those of his background, usually specifies when he means "brothers" otherwise (see his use of the word "brothers" in Rom. 1:13, 7:4, 8:12, 10:1, 11:25, 12:1, 15:14&30, compared to Rom. 7:1&4 and 9:3)...the surrounding chapters would also indicate that this is true (see Rom. 15:5)...
Still, I don't think this excuses us from not being loving to others. In this same epistle, Paul quotes Prov. 25:21 saying: “...If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink..." (Rom. 12:20). If we are supposed to show kindness to our enemies, how much more should we "love [our] neighbors as [ourselves]"?

edit: added links to all those references so you can see for yourselves, if you like

Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:58 pm

I guess my question would be: What is more important to Jesus? Your belief that he died for your sins, or showing love to all of the creations of god?

Post by **Cybrweez** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:44 pm

JemCheeta, if you believe that Jesus died for your sins, it follows that you WOULD show love to all the creations of God (or try anyway). To understand what His sacrifice means and believe in it, you will desire to love others. If that desire isn't there, that understanding of His sacrifice isn't either. So they are not exclusive, and cannot be exclusive. Its more important for you to believe in His sacrifice, b/c God desires that no man should die.

Post by **Avatar** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 4:35 pm

But what Jem is saying there, and what I ask also, is which is more important.

would god rather that we believed in Jesus' death and resurrection, or would he rather we showed love to all living things?

To my mind, any loving, just and meciful god should be more concerned with the ay that we treat others than with whether or not we accept that Jesus died for us.

--Avatar

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Catholics and Protestants -- The Reformation Revisited