Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(April 21, 2015 at 5:13 pm)Dystopia Wrote: It's because some Christians thought the Catholic church became corrupt and decided to create another church and similar reasons for every denomination eventually arose - I don't think it is relevant. It's like asking Christians why they are Christians.
Also a relevant question if you ask me...
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Quote:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
For that matter, Ephesians 2 -
Quote:19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
Nothing special about "peter" there.
I do wish you people could get your story straight.
April 21, 2015 at 5:19 pm (This post was last modified: April 21, 2015 at 5:20 pm by Alex K.)
(April 21, 2015 at 4:39 pm)professor Wrote: The answer is simple if you read Greek.
Jesus said to Pete: "...you are Petros ( masculine, a large piece of rock) and upon this Petra
( feminine, a huge rock like Gibraltar), I will build My church... Two different words are used.
Pete had just stated that Jesus is the Christ.
Upon that information /statement Jesus would build His church.
Christianity predates Catholicism.
Catholicism is a subversion of Christianity.
Well, it's a pun, and he is forced to use the two slightly different words for the pun to work. He has to use the similar word for a big rock in the second instance, or otherwise the metaphor is broken. Alas, we can only hope that the Greek text contains a faithful rendition of the subtleties from the original aramaic. But why should we doubt that.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Yes but they all have different answers. Some is because of their parents, others are new born, others saw Jesus and had visions.
In theory Catholicism would be the correct doctrine if you are an avid devout reader of the bible (even if you support non literalist interpretations) but there's the historical context of Rome V. Constantinople and then Henry VIII (was it VIII?) wanted to have a divorce and so he told the pope to fuck himself (and anglicanism was born).
As someone who lives in the middle of reasonably coherent catholics I don't really dislike it, most people I've met are nice and don't mind the fact I don't believe (some old people tell me I just need to search for god but it's ok if I don't find it) - But I respect the advantages the protestant work ethic had for some countries.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you
April 21, 2015 at 5:29 pm (This post was last modified: April 21, 2015 at 5:31 pm by Alex K.)
(April 21, 2015 at 5:24 pm)Dystopia Wrote: In theory Catholicism would be the correct doctrine if you are an avid devout reader of the bible (even if you support non literalist interpretations) but there's the historical context of Rome V. Constantinople and then Henry VIII (was it VIII?) wanted to have a divorce and so he told the pope to fuck himself (and anglicanism was born).
I appreciate that. But I'd think from a modern disinterested perspective of someone who wants to determine the correct faith, I would have thought a biblical literalist would have to turn to catholicism at least to some extent.
Quote:As someone who lives in the middle of reasonably coherent catholics I don't really dislike it, most people I've met are nice and don't mind the fact I don't believe (some old people tell me I just need to search for god but it's ok if I don't find it) - But I respect the advantages the protestant work ethic had for some countries.
And music...
(April 21, 2015 at 5:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
In 1 Cor 3, Paul says he did it.
Quote:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
For that matter, Ephesians 2 -
Quote:19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
Nothing special about "peter" there.
I do wish you people could get your story straight.
I think I'm a bit slow tonight (it was a long fucking day), but I'm not 100% sure what you are telling us here.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
(April 21, 2015 at 2:04 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I think it's at least somewhat due to the fact that the Catholic church then started pulling shit out of their asses that Jesus never said and wasn't part of the Bible (eg Purgatory, indulgences, the entire structure of the church with the popes/cardinals/bishops, etc). And many thought the catholic church no longer was the rock upon which Jesus built his church.
Pretty much this and they added OT books to the Bible not found in the more/less original version.
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, His Son, purifies us from all sin.
(April 21, 2015 at 2:01 pm)Alex K Wrote: What the title says. Didn't Jesus pretty explicitly state that
Quote:And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
and wouldn't that entail that only the Roman church is the the rightful successor of Jesus? I'm just interested in the rationale of evangelical/protestant Christians behind rejecting this claim.
Stupidity that is all mine is better than stupidity that was passed down?
(April 21, 2015 at 2:01 pm)Alex K Wrote: What the title says. Didn't Jesus pretty explicitly state that
Quote:And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
and wouldn't that entail that only the Roman church is the the rightful successor of Jesus? I'm just interested in the rationale of evangelical/protestant Christians behind rejecting this claim.
Of course the bible says pretty much what its caretakers have decided it needed to say since antiquity. I'm pretty sure the Council of Nicaea was convened and attended exclusively by the Catholic church.
(April 21, 2015 at 2:04 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I think it's at least somewhat due to the fact that the Catholic church then started pulling shit out of their asses that Jesus never said and wasn't part of the Bible (eg Purgatory, indulgences, the entire structure of the church with the popes/cardinals/bishops, etc). And many thought the catholic church no longer was the rock upon which Jesus built his church.
Pretty much this and they added OT books to the Bible not found in the more/less original version.
When was the OT compiled into one book? Wasn't it the Catholic Church that first decided which books should be canon?
The Catholics dictated what individual books constituted the Bible and every other sect follows their lead so there is that. A better question might be why there are any individual sects at all. There is only one Word (supposedly) so there should only be one religion. Either God screwed up dictating the Word to humanity (impossible if God is what is claimed of him) or people screwed up recording and relating the Word (something God should have foreseen). Either way, no religion can be trusted to be correct. But then there is faith which puts the Great Pumpkin on equal standing as Jesus.
Why are we atheists, again?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
