-
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.
T
" Our first care must be that the sheep should be gathered to the great Shepherd; there will be time enough afterwards to secure them for our various folds. To make proselytes, is a suitable labour for Pharisees: to beget men unto God, is the honorable aim of ministers of Christ." C.H.Spurgeon
The Machine
The Machine
There is no perfect denomination, the same way there are no perfect people.
We shouldn't lay another foundation for sinlessness, except for Jesus, because he is man's gateway to being freed from sin. But not via what that man inherently holds as doctrine concerning Jesus, rather I believe it is more through the fact that nobody can go to God unless they are cleansed from sin via Jesus' sacrifice first, and to be honest, in this life, none of us are 'free of sin'. it takes a person to die first. The best we can do in this life is 'walk the path less trodden'.
If sin died with Jesus then it makes sense that if we still commit sins, as John says all do, then our sins also die at death. Alike to Jesus.
'For he who dies is freed of human nature'.
The argument is always 'muslims don't BELIEVE our doctrine', but that's not the real issue. The real issue is do they adhere to living their lives the way Jesus led his?
Blind faith always comes second to compassionate living. I don't believe Jesus said 'if you don't have a certain doctrine, you're going to hell', I believe he said, basically 'Live BY me to have life'. As in, walk beside me, or 'do as I do'.
So to me, a Muslim who 'does as Jesus does' and lives a life of compassion and self sacrifice, already has a quality of life better than many Christians, and also, in my eyes, is a righteous person, as much as one can be in a mortal life immersed in sinful cause and effect.
That applies to Catholics too.
We shouldn't lay another foundation for sinlessness, except for Jesus, because he is man's gateway to being freed from sin. But not via what that man inherently holds as doctrine concerning Jesus, rather I believe it is more through the fact that nobody can go to God unless they are cleansed from sin via Jesus' sacrifice first, and to be honest, in this life, none of us are 'free of sin'. it takes a person to die first. The best we can do in this life is 'walk the path less trodden'.
If sin died with Jesus then it makes sense that if we still commit sins, as John says all do, then our sins also die at death. Alike to Jesus.
'For he who dies is freed of human nature'.
The argument is always 'muslims don't BELIEVE our doctrine', but that's not the real issue. The real issue is do they adhere to living their lives the way Jesus led his?
Blind faith always comes second to compassionate living. I don't believe Jesus said 'if you don't have a certain doctrine, you're going to hell', I believe he said, basically 'Live BY me to have life'. As in, walk beside me, or 'do as I do'.
So to me, a Muslim who 'does as Jesus does' and lives a life of compassion and self sacrifice, already has a quality of life better than many Christians, and also, in my eyes, is a righteous person, as much as one can be in a mortal life immersed in sinful cause and effect.
That applies to Catholics too.
My grandfather wants to ask you and everyone else a few questions John.
He says to you 'John, As a man of war, I've come across killing for the sake of religion and denominationalism all over the world. And as a 61 year old man yourself, you must have been around a bit'. So,to everyone else, in light of the effects of religious hatred, he wants to ask, firstly, 'does the One God, your God, will that all those religiously convicted men around the world have aggression or enmity or hatred towards one another for God's sake, as they all express? And if He does not, then aren't religious and denominational hatred the very issues that cause the conflict itself?'
He also wants to know, 'do you expect to change anyone's denomination by exhibiting religious enmity, or do you actually find it implausible, almost laughable, to think that any kind of aggression or snideness or enmity toward other faiths might do anything to positively change their view on either you, Catholicism, Hinduism or indeed Islam or any other religion or denomination? And lastly, do you find it morally backward, an oxymoron in fact, to use religious conflict, a form of stirring up, (Catholics vs Protestants) as a platform to exhibit your view on God, whenever God speaks against such things many times in the very book whose content you claim to abide by? Or are you another person who thinks that the end justifies the means?
And I'd like to add, 'Why bother fighting over religious doctrine, whenever not one of them is perfect? They all exhibit differences, and the only common denominator that doesn't change day to day is to have reverence for God; a God that comes in hundreds of denominations.
No religious hatred here, neither he nor I care what denomination or religion you all are.
I just thought they were great questions.
He says to you 'John, As a man of war, I've come across killing for the sake of religion and denominationalism all over the world. And as a 61 year old man yourself, you must have been around a bit'. So,to everyone else, in light of the effects of religious hatred, he wants to ask, firstly, 'does the One God, your God, will that all those religiously convicted men around the world have aggression or enmity or hatred towards one another for God's sake, as they all express? And if He does not, then aren't religious and denominational hatred the very issues that cause the conflict itself?'
He also wants to know, 'do you expect to change anyone's denomination by exhibiting religious enmity, or do you actually find it implausible, almost laughable, to think that any kind of aggression or snideness or enmity toward other faiths might do anything to positively change their view on either you, Catholicism, Hinduism or indeed Islam or any other religion or denomination? And lastly, do you find it morally backward, an oxymoron in fact, to use religious conflict, a form of stirring up, (Catholics vs Protestants) as a platform to exhibit your view on God, whenever God speaks against such things many times in the very book whose content you claim to abide by? Or are you another person who thinks that the end justifies the means?
And I'd like to add, 'Why bother fighting over religious doctrine, whenever not one of them is perfect? They all exhibit differences, and the only common denominator that doesn't change day to day is to have reverence for God; a God that comes in hundreds of denominations.
No religious hatred here, neither he nor I care what denomination or religion you all are.
I just thought they were great questions.
J
Roman Catholicism is apostate. When the Bishop says, "I love Jesus" if he is meaningfully a Catholic, those words mean nothing more and nothing less than when an Imam, or a Bhuddist Monk says it. In all three cases, it is an idol that is not Jesus, but something they call Jesus.
Looks can be deceiving... Just because it has split hooves, doesn't mean it chews the cud.
Looks can be deceiving... Just because it has split hooves, doesn't mean it chews the cud.
To your standard, which is that I put my status on this website as 'Christian'. Perhaps I don't like to be associated with what that title portrays in today's world, for reason as said above; religious hatred itself.
To associate myself with a title that has brought men under war and had men be killed for its sake after it's founder Jesus of Nazareth spoke about loving one's neighbor, is most definitely enmity towards true religion of the God of love.
I believe he directed those questions toward people who are willing to contemplate them for what they are without the boxes and checklists. He's seen the effects of hatred, and is certainly regenerate of them.
To associate myself with a title that has brought men under war and had men be killed for its sake after it's founder Jesus of Nazareth spoke about loving one's neighbor, is most definitely enmity towards true religion of the God of love.
I believe he directed those questions toward people who are willing to contemplate them for what they are without the boxes and checklists. He's seen the effects of hatred, and is certainly regenerate of them.
Last edited:
J
Ah, I see you are afflicted with a form of holier-than-thou... it's the more-spiritual-than-thou thing that is very popular today.
That being said, I did not say whether you were or weren't a Christian. Rather the flaw in condeming any sort of disagreement with people. You might want to be careful about accusing others or religious hostility, because you are pointin' that finger with three pointin' back.
That being said, I did not say whether you were or weren't a Christian. Rather the flaw in condeming any sort of disagreement with people. You might want to be careful about accusing others or religious hostility, because you are pointin' that finger with three pointin' back.
They're questions to think about, and thanks for the bait Jimmy, but no thanks. I was defending myself to you right then and speaking about my own views on my own beliefs and why I am the way I am, I don't need to say anything about yours. I'm simply asking the questions that I've already been asked and decided on an answer to. You can decide on whichever answer you like.
H
porthos,
Not a bad question but one you can easily clear up by learning what Jesus taught. He taught Gods Law, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." He never taught that religion should be used in that way. And Yes of course religious hatred can cause things like that. Jesus taught against that and had to deal with that himself. The pharisees were the religious ones that conspired against Him. So I am sure he gets your point.
But the main point is we know who God is by the life of Jesus. Col 1:15 explains it well. Jesus is the image of the unseen God.
No I dont think things are helped by enmity. But I see nothing wrong with discussion. My point is to bring us together and not parse words or differences.
I agree. Does that mean people cannot discuss differences and come to agreements and understandings?
Might be good questions if you noted some kind of hatred operating. Otherwise they are quite presumptious.
I never said you cared about anything. The opening poster wanted to debate some issues and so I volunteered. I thought it would be fun. Now I hear you accusing me of some kind of character problem. I would say if you feel that way you dont need to be a part of it.
I detect by reading your other posts that you are quite accusatory of others and judgmental. Maybe the problem is yours.
JohnR
Not a bad question but one you can easily clear up by learning what Jesus taught. He taught Gods Law, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." He never taught that religion should be used in that way. And Yes of course religious hatred can cause things like that. Jesus taught against that and had to deal with that himself. The pharisees were the religious ones that conspired against Him. So I am sure he gets your point.
But the main point is we know who God is by the life of Jesus. Col 1:15 explains it well. Jesus is the image of the unseen God.
No I dont think things are helped by enmity. But I see nothing wrong with discussion. My point is to bring us together and not parse words or differences.
I agree. Does that mean people cannot discuss differences and come to agreements and understandings?
Might be good questions if you noted some kind of hatred operating. Otherwise they are quite presumptious.
I never said you cared about anything. The opening poster wanted to debate some issues and so I volunteered. I thought it would be fun. Now I hear you accusing me of some kind of character problem. I would say if you feel that way you dont need to be a part of it.
I detect by reading your other posts that you are quite accusatory of others and judgmental. Maybe the problem is yours.
JohnR
Last edited by a moderator:
Well the whole catholic doctrine is based on speculation, they say that peter was the first bishop of the roman catholic church, however there is no historical record that peter was ever in rome. They take one quote from Jesus Christ out of its context and use it erroneously to support their doctrine
H
dude3,
We are also entitled to be right when the facts are on our side and the facts are that even Catholic scholars say that Peter was never a bishop of Rome and in fact there were no bishops in the Roman Church until mid 2nd century.
Here is Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity to explain
page 61 regarding Matt 16:18 "There is no evidence that Rome exploited
this text to assert its primacy before about 250AD....In fact the
first Roman Bishop in any meaningful sense was probably Soter,
166-74"
So lets talk about facts of history and not opinons.
JohnR
We are also entitled to be right when the facts are on our side and the facts are that even Catholic scholars say that Peter was never a bishop of Rome and in fact there were no bishops in the Roman Church until mid 2nd century.
Here is Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity to explain
page 61 regarding Matt 16:18 "There is no evidence that Rome exploited
this text to assert its primacy before about 250AD....In fact the
first Roman Bishop in any meaningful sense was probably Soter,
166-74"
So lets talk about facts of history and not opinons.
JohnR
