Originally posted by anaconda
and has the church authorities of present day apologised for the action and role of the church in the past?
John Paul and Benedict have in the past, and continue to do so. However, would you ask Austria to apologize for Hitler? No, because thats just stupid- I think this idea of apologizing for the past is a huge mistake because it forces people to take responsibility for things they never did.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
John Paul and Benedict have in the past, and continue to do so. However, would you ask Austria to apologize for Hitler? No, because thats just stupid- I think this idea of apologizing for the past is a huge mistake because it forces people to take responsibility for things they never did.
Ya, asking for forgiveness is really over rated. 😉
grand that example doesnt work. if the third reich existed today as the same or similar organistion then the people in it SHUD apologise. same as most of the nazi soldiers who are still alive shud have apologised to the world and those they made suffer{in all due fairness they are not as giulty as the higher ups ad they had very few choices, but still an apology wud be nice}. asking citizens and the current generation who are neither PART of the organisation {austrians} and who have cut off ties and do not follow the organisation and have no ties to them shudnt be asked to apologise as they have nuthing to apologise for.
you wudnt ask CURRENT DAY rome/romans{who do not explicitly follow the church} to apologise for the church{ cut off ties from it to many extents, had no hand in the past. are not part of the same old organisation that persists to this day and has its fair share of blood on its hands even today- yea ud be surprised, with trials have been substitued by supporting isreal, holy wars in africa, spreading disinformation which makes people not use contraception and STDs spread like wildfire, economically unfair market practices to accumulate walth and disadvantage other relegions, corruptption etc to gain economic power, the percistance of of psychologically oppressive ideologies to make follower and children of followers suffer etc etc etc}. but you wud DEFINATELY ask the church for an apology as it is the same organisation which has persisted through the ages and NEVER apologised for its behavior or specifically condoned it.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonGod is forgiving if I were wrong, so long as my heart is good. God looks to the inside and judges accordingly.
What if you are wrong? I think it is, or at least has been, dangerous for a few people to get together and judge others based of their interpretation of the bible. The Salem witch trials come to mind.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Relevancy?
You say, if I'm wrong I will be forgiven, if my intentions are good. However, you have not addressed the damage your wrong deeds could have made. If you condom someone wrongly, and you cause that person damage, how can you be forgiven? The consequences of your actions will manifest themselves in your life regardless of forgiveness.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonForgiveness only works when under God's grace however. Wrong works are punished by God. And yes, it is likely that they will effect you in your own life, regardless, it is apart of penance.
You say, if I'm wrong I will be forgiven, if my intentions are good. However, you have not addressed the damage your wrong deeds could have made. If you condom someone wrongly, and you cause that person damage, how can you be forgiven? The consequences of your actions will manifest themselves in your life regardless of forgiveness.
Also, LOL at condom for condemn.
Re: Church vs Bible?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Now as we all know the books which make up the New Testament were written between say 30-40 years after Christs death. There was no real definitive Canon of Scripture until the 19th Century at the Council of Trent.So, the Bible was made up by the Church! The Church wasn't made by the Bible...therefore does that not mean Christian Tradition has supremacy over Sola Scriptura?
Discuss further please.
(I've kept this one shorter than the last one)
Just for clarification on the two positions Wikipedia had this to say:
To me, it seems Luther and chums didn't like the rules in place...so tried a clean slate with making up all this Scripute Alone rubbish...but thats just me.
Wikipedia may be slightly off in its description of sola scriptura from the text you have quoted.
The typically understood concept of sola scriptura is closer to solum Novum Testamentum as the New Testament is taken in precedence over the entire Old Testament. Thus you are attacking a fallacious concept, that in itself denies the divine nature of half the Bible.
Perhaps a slogan more in line with the ideal espoused much of Christianity is sola scriptura would be sola scriptura et sola decreta conciliorum, "the scriptures and the decrees of the councils alone." Which is closer to your claim, which states that the scriptures and tradition are what defines Christianity.
The question must also be addressed, where is tradition recorded and what is tradition? Is the evolved version of "Christian tradition" an accurate representation of the traditions of the early Christians and the Apostles? Where is the "Christian tradition" that would define Christianity recorded? Is Christianity a plastic religion that alters itself to fit the people then? What of the tradition of monetary indulgence? Is this tradition then what defines Christian forgiveness?
What tradition exists in the Bible (the entire Bible, not only the New Testament) for understanding God's interaction with man? The Bible overwhelmingly shows direct interaction, the Bible does not show a tradition of personal understanding without divine intervention either direct or through heavenly messenger in some manner. Prior to Christ we have prophets throughout, few predicting future occurrence, most merely relating God's messages with man. We have the same following Christ's death and resurrection. Following Christ we have the day of Pentecost, angels presenting information to man, we have Paul and his vision and assignment, we have Peter and his direction as to the Jewish dietary law, we also have other examples. Given this, what in current Christianity actually follows the traditions presented in the Bible, which is our most direct recording of early Christian tradition?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Forgiveness only works when under God's grace however. Wrong works are punished by God. And yes, it is likely that they will effect you in your own life, regardless, it is apart of penance.
1) I would rather recieve the forgiveness of the human being I hurt, than the God I cannot see or hear. Whether or not God forgives me, would not take away the guilt I would have if I hurt another person that badly. Not in a million years.
2) I beleive in Karma. Not the "you will be reborn as a worm" karma, but the web of causation, the cycle of cause and effect (if you will) that begins with one thought, emotion, and/or action, and continues in a cycle of that same likeness.
Harboring hatred for another, will also hurt myself in the long run. I beleive that only I can change my Karma. Praying to God is a tool that I can use to push myself into changing my karma, but ulmately it is my responsibility and doing that will change me.
The one thing I don't like about Christianity's idea of salvation is that once I "repent", I am alleviated of all responsibility for my wrongs. That's a cop out.
3) If that kind of suffering or punishment is penance, than would you say Hell is Eternal Penance ?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Also, LOL at condom for condemn.
That is So0o0o0o0o something I would do droolio