The Apocalypse
- Started
- Last post
- 212 Responses
- Ctrl_Z0
the Apocalypse has came already with the invention of the machine, welcome to your computer hell.
please drive through.
- frow0
mitsu... some not-so-intellectual-slouches of the past that embraced Jesus:
-C.S. Lewis
-Blaise Pascal
-Sir Isaac Newton
-John Calvin
-Karl Barth
-Albert Schweitzer
-Francis Schaeffer...to name just a few. Love ya.
- mitsu0
frow, i think you read me wrong. i'm with you, i just don't condone debating the validity of the bible. it's an exercise in futility. besides, it's not the bible you worship anyway (i'd hope), so it's silly to waste time on it anyway. and my feelings about debating Gods existence aren't too different. he's supernatural, and you can't disprove or prove his existance, especially with physical means. as i said before, you either believe or you don't. share your testimony with the world, but that should be the extent of it. your obligations go no further. as a human you can only do so much, and youcan't save everyone.
- frow0
mitsu, my goal is not to save the world. Not once have I started a thread in order to proselytize or convert. Some very specific criticisms have been raised in this thread (not started by me) and I've simply responded to them specifically. Can one prove the existence of the supernatural? Of course not. That is to be accepted or rejected on the basis of faith. But one may provide clear, concrete evidences for the accuracy of scripture. We have a differing opinion on this point.
- mitsu0
"But one may provide clear, concrete evidences for the accuracy of scripture."
but here's your problem, the bible is open to interpretation. (obviously, given the number of religions and christian denominations in this world). with that being the case, it's very difficult to define 'accuracy'.
- frow0
What people do not seem to understand is that the differing denominations of "Christendom" only differ on peripheral issues; minor non-essential issues that there is plenty of room to differ on, ie: when to partake in communion, the order of events in service, elder/deacon structure, etc... These are not issues that cause division. In other words, I can enjoy fellowship and unity with a believer from a Baptist background as much a believer from a multi-denominational background. We do not differ on essentials - only peripherals. The Bible specifically allows for grey areas on non-essentials...
There can be unity without uniformity.
- InVivio0
Yeah Frow,
Those Catholics just can't seem to get enough fellowship with those Jehovah's Witnesses or Episcopals. If you had even studied the American Christian sects at all you would know that thier doctrines are incongruent. I would go as far to say that they barely tolerate each other.
- mbr0
With a wimper and a bang...
We still talkin' about the apocalypse?
- mitsu0
"I can enjoy fellowship and unity with a believer from a Baptist background as much a believer from a multi-denominational background. We do not differ on essentials - only peripherals. "
agreed..
InVivio, those aren't different denominations, those are literally different religions - imho
- InVivio0
The "faiths" of those mentioned groups are no different than any other denomination's differences from another. But I guess you're proving my point if you don't accept Episcopals and Catholics as Christians. I'll give you that on JW's, they're a stretch, but technically they are Christians.
- frow0
Thank you for passing judgement on me InVivio. Actually, I have studied the groups you mentioned in detail and for many years. Those are groups that differ on ESSENTIAL issues - not peripheral issues. They therefore fall outside the pale of Orthodoxy. Therefore the line of demarkation is to be drawn with these groups.
- frow0
You really should do your homework before making such dogmatic assertions, InVivio.
- InVivio0
I wasn't passing judgement. I was Illustrating how Christians sects are in disagreement. If faith in the divinty and propititory sacrifice of Jesus Christ are the "Essential" elements of Christian faith, than all but one of those groups qualitfies.
But I suppose this distinction relys heavily on who is making the critieria.
- mitsu0
"But I suppose this distinction relys heavily on who is making the critieria."
yyyep.
- Jamesh0
"I tell you this... I'm going to get my kicks before the whole shit house goes up in flames"
-J Morisson
- gdiddy0
Hey, how about how well the Catholics and Protestants get along ...
- gdiddy0
You know, my whole problem with born agains is the smug attitude they have twords us heathens. Judge not lest ye be judged I thought? In all my years I have only met ONE B.A.C. who didn't have that smug, too bad your going to hell for not being saved attitude.
None of the jews I've ever talked too about religion have that attitude. None of my Budhist friends....
- frow0
The criteria was established by the first believers and made clear throughout the Epistles. The criteria was reiterated in the first councils.
Some of these essential doctrines are:
The Deity of Christ
The Virgin Birth
The Triune nature of God
The Physical Ressurection
Salvation by Grace through Faith Alone
- frow0
That's a shame, gdiddy. It saddens me to hear that so many who profess to know Christ are so smug & hypocritical. I guess God only knows where their hearts truly are. Christ was not that way. I guess I've been blessed to know many Christians that truly love Jesus & love others, "heathen" or not. I guess that's why Jesus said "narrow is the way to life".
It saddens me more than those who yell tolerance so loudly, but are some of the most intolerant people themselves...
...intolerant of any that have a differing viewpoint.