-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D
They are Christians with mistakes just like evryone of us even though they divert too much from Christianity, this is the reason I disagree with Catholics;
1. They call Marry the mother of God
2. Gifts are from God and he demands that they be used as he gave them to all people but there are some woman who cannot use the gift of their womb (none's), Jesus said such people will be cast into a dark place, don't know what it is
3. They have an image of Jesus for worshipExo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Otherwise yes they are Christians
1. They call Marry the mother of God
2. Gifts are from God and he demands that they be used as he gave them to all people but there are some woman who cannot use the gift of their womb (none's), Jesus said such people will be cast into a dark place, don't know what it is
3. They have an image of Jesus for worshipExo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Otherwise yes they are Christians
I think that we are protected under grace in our innocence. But I also think we should try to learn what God really wants. Start reading, Genesis is as good a place as any. When you read, read with desire to know what it is really saying. Pray. Love God with all of your heart. Love your neighbor (Neighbors are everyone). Love does not mean that you accept everything everyone does, but you approach them with gentle words if you try to correct them.
I do not know how old you are or what your knowledge of scripture is, so I will give my understanding in hopefully a simple way.
You say you are confused because you hear "we are christian", believers were first called christian in a city named Antioch where Paul and Barnabas taught for one year. Acts 11:26 Christian means 'little Christ' and was a derogatory word used by pagans to make fun of believers. Christians were happy to be called little Christs, and the term has become what those who believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah (Christ), the Anointed One are called. So anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah are called christian.
"we are Roman Catholic" a Roman Catholic is a christian that follows the teachings of the Bishop of Rome and submits to his authority as the leader of the Church. The majority of christians today are Roman Catholic, but there is also millions of christians today who do not recognize the bishop of Rome as the leader of the Church and follow different leaders and traditions still believing that Jesus is the Messiah.
Whether you follow the bishop of Rome or some other christian leader is not the important thing, your relationship with God is the important thing. The Catholic Church does not save you, Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, He alone saves us and makes us one with him in a personal relationship. God loves us and wants us to love him and one another, when we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, God enters into our hearts, the Holy Spirit comes and lives with us, bearing witness that God is real. It is not a religion we follow to be saved, we are saved by following Jesus Christ and falling in love with God.
I hope this has helped you in understanding.
Christ be with you always.
You say you are confused because you hear "we are christian", believers were first called christian in a city named Antioch where Paul and Barnabas taught for one year. Acts 11:26 Christian means 'little Christ' and was a derogatory word used by pagans to make fun of believers. Christians were happy to be called little Christs, and the term has become what those who believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah (Christ), the Anointed One are called. So anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah are called christian.
"we are Roman Catholic" a Roman Catholic is a christian that follows the teachings of the Bishop of Rome and submits to his authority as the leader of the Church. The majority of christians today are Roman Catholic, but there is also millions of christians today who do not recognize the bishop of Rome as the leader of the Church and follow different leaders and traditions still believing that Jesus is the Messiah.
Whether you follow the bishop of Rome or some other christian leader is not the important thing, your relationship with God is the important thing. The Catholic Church does not save you, Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, He alone saves us and makes us one with him in a personal relationship. God loves us and wants us to love him and one another, when we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, God enters into our hearts, the Holy Spirit comes and lives with us, bearing witness that God is real. It is not a religion we follow to be saved, we are saved by following Jesus Christ and falling in love with God.
I hope this has helped you in understanding.
Christ be with you always.
J
Anyone who goes against Christ's Doctrine and do heinous things against fellow humans in the name of war,politics,heresy to point of murdering them,looting them,lying against them(false witness),etc are not Christians.
A Christian who has got troubles in his life,God can help.But doing things harmful against another one Grieves the Holy Spirit.
A Christian who has got troubles in his life,God can help.But doing things harmful against another one Grieves the Holy Spirit.
It is a low blow. Sorry.
Still, perhaps you can empathize with Catholics when they are told that "faith alone" will get them into Heaven. You can see why they might feel that God needs "help" with their salvation process. He just isn't very comforting. I personally became a Christian at a very young age because I grew up in a Christian home, but my salvation didn't feel real because I hadn't lived long enough to do anything I regretted. Like most Christians in that situation, I asked for salvation several times. Wouldn't it be nice to have a sign of some sort that you were saved? The Left Behind series had all the tribulation saints receive a secret mark on their forehead to signify their salvation, and it's obvious why -- that's what should happen, and that part of the story followed from wishful thinking.
I didn't mean any insult to say that you're biased against Catholics... I'm biased against Christianity. Bias itself isn't the problem, but rather letting your decisions and beliefs being based on them. I cited the passage in Acts that said "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved", but I just as easily could've cited John 3:16 ("whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"). These verses speak solely about belief. It has nothing to do with election or works, because God's sovereignty is not mutually exclusive with (or necessary for) belief. The reason that I said bias was leading your thinking was because you unnecessarily put extra content in these verses, reverse-engineering your thinking about how salvation works and applying it to the scripture. "Whosoever believeth", in my view, means "everyone who believes". Whether or not that person also believes that they need mass and confession, if they are among "everyone who believes" then they shall "have everlasting life".
Or, of course, we could just look at Jesus' answer to the rich young ruler when he asked what was necessary for salvation, in which case Jesus said works, followed by works (with no mention at all about belief).
Still, perhaps you can empathize with Catholics when they are told that "faith alone" will get them into Heaven. You can see why they might feel that God needs "help" with their salvation process. He just isn't very comforting. I personally became a Christian at a very young age because I grew up in a Christian home, but my salvation didn't feel real because I hadn't lived long enough to do anything I regretted. Like most Christians in that situation, I asked for salvation several times. Wouldn't it be nice to have a sign of some sort that you were saved? The Left Behind series had all the tribulation saints receive a secret mark on their forehead to signify their salvation, and it's obvious why -- that's what should happen, and that part of the story followed from wishful thinking.
I didn't mean any insult to say that you're biased against Catholics... I'm biased against Christianity. Bias itself isn't the problem, but rather letting your decisions and beliefs being based on them. I cited the passage in Acts that said "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved", but I just as easily could've cited John 3:16 ("whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"). These verses speak solely about belief. It has nothing to do with election or works, because God's sovereignty is not mutually exclusive with (or necessary for) belief. The reason that I said bias was leading your thinking was because you unnecessarily put extra content in these verses, reverse-engineering your thinking about how salvation works and applying it to the scripture. "Whosoever believeth", in my view, means "everyone who believes". Whether or not that person also believes that they need mass and confession, if they are among "everyone who believes" then they shall "have everlasting life".
Or, of course, we could just look at Jesus' answer to the rich young ruler when he asked what was necessary for salvation, in which case Jesus said works, followed by works (with no mention at all about belief).
No, I don't consider Hitler a Christian, although he may have been. He claimed to be one many times and spoke of his actions being guided by "the Almighty Creator" and "Divine Providence", though he strikes me as religious as your typical politician (not very), using God to win over Christian Germans. Nevertheless, Martin Luther and John Calvin strike me as Christians, and they were responsible for making witch-burning popular. What makes you think that Christians can't be mass-murderers?
Just because someone goes by the name of Christian doesn't make them one, but just because they do things that don't fit your view of Christianity doesn't make them not a Christian. If Hitler was "directed by God to go to war with certain neighboring tribes as His arm of punishment" (as he could have been, for all you know), would that be compatible with your view of Christianity?
Just because someone goes by the name of Christian doesn't make them one, but just because they do things that don't fit your view of Christianity doesn't make them not a Christian. If Hitler was "directed by God to go to war with certain neighboring tribes as His arm of punishment" (as he could have been, for all you know), would that be compatible with your view of Christianity?
Of course I've heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls. And of course they were copies. But before the printing press came about, copying texts was very slow and expensive (according to Nate Silver in "The Signal and the Noise", a single manuscript would've cost a Roman about $20,000 if you translated that to "today's currency"). So it's unlikely that many copies were in circulation, and as I said before, a peasant wouldn't have been able to read the bible even if he had it in his or her own language.
While I agree that the Catholic church is "changing constantly" in some way, it seems unlikely that they used to be preaching "faith alone". Religions have a tendency to resist change, and when they do it seems to be in response to the in-tenability of their beliefs (such as the Catholic Church's current acceptance of Darwin's and Galileo's theories). In fact, given the specific arguments Martin Luther had with the Catholic church, it's obvious that they rejected "faith alone" during his age. Do you think that this stance of the Catholic church had been adopted within 100 years before Luther, or had at least one or two generations passed since the Catholic church held this stance, assuming that they ever did?
While I agree that the Catholic church is "changing constantly" in some way, it seems unlikely that they used to be preaching "faith alone". Religions have a tendency to resist change, and when they do it seems to be in response to the in-tenability of their beliefs (such as the Catholic Church's current acceptance of Darwin's and Galileo's theories). In fact, given the specific arguments Martin Luther had with the Catholic church, it's obvious that they rejected "faith alone" during his age. Do you think that this stance of the Catholic church had been adopted within 100 years before Luther, or had at least one or two generations passed since the Catholic church held this stance, assuming that they ever did?
E
1. So God did not have the power to pay to make sure everyone had a copy?
2. Even if you say the church probably could not. Does not Gods people vulonteer for things all the time? and what would stop them from doing this very important thing back then?
3. It is obvious in peters words, that all he wrote to (all jews everywhere) knew, read and understood pauls writings, and called them scripture. this could not happen if not everyone had copies of these letters.
2. Even if you say the church probably could not. Does not Gods people vulonteer for things all the time? and what would stop them from doing this very important thing back then?
3. It is obvious in peters words, that all he wrote to (all jews everywhere) knew, read and understood pauls writings, and called them scripture. this could not happen if not everyone had copies of these letters.
It should be noted very clearly that I'm an atheist, and as an atheist (neither Protestant nor Catholic) I don't have any bias towards one side or the other. I am led to my point-of-view by the evidence, and I can be swayed by good evidence. Whether or not Catholics are Christian, I'm going to continue to see both Catholics and Protestants as equally delusional. So I think my views ought to be taken more seriously than those who need to defend "their side".
1. I think God should (if He existed) have the power to give everyone their own personal copy of the bible for free. I think it would be written in a language like "tongues" in which any reader (even an illiterate one) could read it in his or her own language. But we're not talking about what "could" or "should" be true, but rather was "is" and "was" true. It was true that "everyone" did not "have a copy".
2. I'm sorry, but I don't get your point. What would "God's people" being volunteering to do? Do you mean transcribing the bible? That requires an education, something that was not historically as common as it is today.
3. Where is it "in Peter's words" that he wrote to all Jews everywhere? That's not even possible to do today with modern technology like the internet. Citation please.
2. I'm sorry, but I don't get your point. What would "God's people" being volunteering to do? Do you mean transcribing the bible? That requires an education, something that was not historically as common as it is today.
3. Where is it "in Peter's words" that he wrote to all Jews everywhere? That's not even possible to do today with modern technology like the internet. Citation please.
I am not biased either. I see rights and wrongs on both sides as well. When I wrote that, I felt like you were trying to agitate more than help. I always like to hear what Cycel (who is also an atheist) has to say. Sometimes he can respond ignorantly, but a lot of the time he has quality information that he gives in a respectable way. You, at the time, were just bothering people (of course, that is just my opinion).
I do not do much study outside of the bible and do not know every change that the catholic church has made since the first century, but we do know that they do some things that the bible clearly says not to do. Again, this is not intended to be an attack as much as it is intended to inspire people to read the bible. So many people in so many denominations (groups might be better, since so many claim to be non-denom.) do not read their bibles. They just go to church and listen to whatever is being said and they don't know enough to determine whether or not it is biblical.
What have I said that is disrespectful? I don't insult my opponents, and I make every effort to represent their argument faithfully. If disagreement is disrespectful, then I don't think it's possible to be respectful while holding opposing viewpoints. I even try to be kind to my opponents when they propose that I'm ignorant (as you did when you "asked" if I had heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
The reason that I challenged you on the Dead Sea Scrolls is that I tried to guess (as best I could) what your point about bringing them up was. My original argument was that the Catholic church's views were dominant because people didn't have access to the bible except through them. I thought you were bringing up the Dead Sea Scrolls as a rebuttal to that, to demonstrate that there was access to the bible outside of the Catholic church. If we both agree that the bible was hard to come by outside of Catholicism, then why did you even bother trying to rebut my argument? Or were you simply agreeing with me?
The reason that I challenged you on the Dead Sea Scrolls is that I tried to guess (as best I could) what your point about bringing them up was. My original argument was that the Catholic church's views were dominant because people didn't have access to the bible except through them. I thought you were bringing up the Dead Sea Scrolls as a rebuttal to that, to demonstrate that there was access to the bible outside of the Catholic church. If we both agree that the bible was hard to come by outside of Catholicism, then why did you even bother trying to rebut my argument? Or were you simply agreeing with me?
Does the Catholic bible not have extra books? I've never read them, but I always assumed that's where they drew their rituals from. Of course, the letter to the Romans is in both bibles and seems obviously directed at the Catholic church, but as an atheist I see Christians accepting conflicting verses into a single belief all the time. I agree with you that may "do not read their bibles" and just go with the crowd.
No, I don't remember you being rude or disrespectful to me, but if I remember correctly you seemed to be trying to agitate some other people. I apologize if I was wrong, but that is how I saw it at the time. And that is why I thought I should let them know that you were an atheist. Again, if you weren't just trying to stir the nest, I am sorry.