Christians?, with all these post, are there any christians here? Options

[Juris Khan]

is anybody here a Christian, and if so, do you really believe and follow Christ, because with all these posts about having sex and whatnot, it doesn't necessarily sound like it...but i don't want to be judgmental and say that you're not...

[Kontroll]

Actually, Jeremy is right. Jesus probably wasn't a carpenter. If you look at the original translations of the Bible, it refers to him as a 'Teknon.' That's Greek for 'Hand Worker.' I believe that is correct. That could have been any occupation considering in those days they really didn't have machines like we do, and most work was probably done with your hands. So, He could have been weaving baskets for all we know.

Secondly, I'm a Christian, not a good one at that, but I still am. It's not like you can lose your salvation. If you think so, show me. I don't agree with Jeremy on 99 percent of anything we talk about that involves rigorous debate, so don't think I'm siding with him cause he's my friend.

Jesus was Middle Eastern. He was a Nazarene. He did have long hair because Nazarene's weren't allowed to cut their hair. As was Samson, if you all remember your Biblical histroy.

I don't know much about the Bible, or Jesus, but there are some key principles that I do know. Those are the ones that are keeping my life in check for the most part. I believe in Christianity, not blindly, but out of faith. Faith is trust. Trust isn't blind. Love is blind.

I don't feel that we should all be scholars about the Bible, cause I really don't think that's what Jesus was going for. I mean, he helped the poor, sick and widowed. I'm sure they all knew so much about Him and God. I believe that all he really wants is a relationship with Him and that we put our trust in Him 100 percent. Yes, 100 percent. It talks about that in the Bible.

My beliefs on Catholicism is that it is a sect of Christianity, but an outdated philosophy that really only looks at the ritualistic aspects of Christianity. To say that the Pope is an intermediary between God and us is blasphemous, because the only intermediary was Jesus. Yes, there were prophets and all that spoke directly with God, but they didn't tell us that we had to talk through them in order to speak with God. The pope is 100 percent human and nothing else. Jesus was 100 percent human and 100 percent God. He was flesh incarnate.

End.

[espressive]

My belief on Catholicism is that it is the Church that Jesus Christ himself started and is the only valid sect of Christianity as all the other flavors were started by men and not by God.

If the basis of your debate is that Cathlicism is only valid because it was "started by God and not by men", then you can basically challenge the authenticity of the Bible. The Bible was written by men, and not be God, so then wouldn't the Bible be invalid in that sense too? Hasn't history proved that God works through people? That's how the Bible came about. How do you know God wasn't working through Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran sect?

So Jesus may have appointed the first leaders of the Church, but did he ever tell them that they are infalliable and hold the thread of communication between God and people? No, he didn't. Those ideas were developed by humans. And if the Pope is indeed infalliable, then why did Pope Alexander VI run a brothel in Vatican and allowed "The Banquet of Chestnuts", which is basically this huge orgy? The Bible certainly does not approve of that and actually tells us that our body is a temple of God and we shouldn't abuse it in such manner. Why did Popes in the medieval times also allowed the selling of indulgences? Tell me, is it really possible to be released from penance by money? No, salvation comes from faith alone, not by giving money to the Pope and writing your name on a piece of paper. Popes also hold the power to excommunicate people from the Church. Who are you to decide if a person is worthy to be apart of the Church? That is being judgemental, and the Bible tells us that the only one with that authority is God himself. The Catholic religion focuses so much on the Pope that he almost becomes an idol (with his infallibility and whatnot). The Bible clearly states that the only infallible one is Jesus Christ, not the Pope. So you see, Catholicism may have been founded by Jesus Christ originally, but much of it has been twisted to fit human desires. Don't tell me, "That's not true. Catholicism hasn't changed since the beginning!" If Catholicism hasn't changed, you would be reading the Bible in Latin, not English or French or German. The Catholics opposed the translation of the Bible from Latin and always conducted services in Latin. Martin Luther was excommunciated for translating the Bible into German, because it was forbidden. But obviously, that taboo has changed, hasn't it?

[/catholic rant]

[*kryogenix*]

If the basis of your debate is that Cathlicism is only valid because it was "started by God and not by men", then you can basically challenge the authenticity of the Bible. The Bible was written by men, and not be God, so then wouldn't the Bible be invalid in that sense too? Hasn't history proved that God works through people? That's how the Bible came about. How do you know God wasn't working through Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran sect?

The Bible was divinely inspired, even though it was written by men. I know he wasn't working through Martin Luther because it wouldn't make sense for God to start a schism between His people, would it? Not to mention Luther's concepts of sola scriptura and sola fide contradict each other.

So Jesus may have appointed the first leaders of the Church, but did he ever tell them that they are infalliable and hold the thread of communication between God and people? No, he didn't. Those ideas were developed by humans. And if the Pope is indeed infalliable, then why did Pope Alexander VI run a brothel in Vatican and allowed "The Banquet of Chestnuts", which is basically this huge orgy? The Bible certainly does not approve of that and actually tells us that our body is a temple of God and we shouldn't abuse it in such manner.

Yeah, he gave St. Peter papal authority. The Pope is infallible on matters of faith and when speaking ex cathedra. Pope Alexander VI was a wicked man yes, and there were many other bad Popes, but none of their decisions changed Catholic belief for the worse.

Why did Popes in the medieval times also allowed the selling of indulgences? Tell me, is it really possible to be released from penance by money? No, salvation comes from faith alone, not by giving money to the Pope and writing your name on a piece of paper.

You don't know how indlugences work. I need to get to bed soon, so I apologize that I'll have to tell you to look it up.

Popes also hold the power to excommunicate people from the Church. Who are you to decide if a person is worthy to be apart of the Church? That is being judgemental, and the Bible tells us that the only one with that authority is God himself.

Sinning seperates us from Jesus Christ; excommunication is only a public announcement of notorious sin. You can still return if you repent.

The Catholic religion focuses so much on the Pope that he almost becomes an idol (with his infallibility and whatnot). The Bible clearly states that the only infallible one is Jesus Christ, not the Pope.

Again, St. Peter as first Pope and apostolic succession.

So you see, Catholicism may have been founded by Jesus Christ originally, but much of it has been twisted to fit human desires. Don't tell me, "That's not true. Catholicism hasn't changed since the beginning!" If Catholicism hasn't changed, you would be reading the Bible in Latin, not English or French or German. The Catholics opposed the translation of the Bible from Latin and always conducted services in Latin. Martin Luther was excommunciated for translating the Bible into German, because it was forbidden. But obviously, that taboo has changed, hasn't it?

[/catholic rant]

Another misstatement. That was not why Luther was excommunicated; read his theses and you'll see a lot that was incompatible with Church doctrine. I forgot which declaration allowed the use of vernacular; I'll refresh my mind when I have more time. Personally, I'd love to see a return to Latin masses, but that's a subject for a different debate .

If God created the Catholic church as the one true sect of Christianity, why did the Catholic church feel compelled to eradicate all the free thinking Christians? I mean, if you look at it, Jesus was a free thinking Christian. Was he not? He was a revolutionary of the time. So, that would defeat the purpose of eliminating all those Christians during the rule of the Roman Empire. I would love to get into a debate with you about this. Anytime.

Say what now? Eradicate who? Didn't the Roman Empire persecute Christians?

Or are you going to steer the discussion to Galileo?

I'm ready, Fae knows.

In any case, Pax Tectum to both of you! I'm going to bed.

Ugh, I regret taking Japanese over Latin. I need to take a Religious Studies class too.