Image
Image
Image

Topics Calendar

March 2019

S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

Who is online

In total there are 9 users online :: 4 registered, 0 hidden and 5 guests

Most users ever online was 454 on Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:04 pm

Registered users: AhrefsBot, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], SemrushBot


Legend :: Administrators, Moderators

Statistics

Total posts 663705
Total topics 19177
Total members 2938
Our newest member Healy66

Biblical matters

Fancy a pint? Join the crai­c and non-rugby topics here.

Moderators: The Fonz, Moderators

  • Advertisement

Topic Rating:
  • 5 votes
  

Re: Biblical matters

Postby promenader 2 » Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:26 pm

UlsterAreBrill wrote:
promenader 2 wrote:
UlsterAreBrill wrote:
promenader 2 wrote:
UlsterAreBrill wrote:http://www.thewicketgate.org/2015/05/christianity-is-not-an-umbrella-term/

This is a helpful article for those still confused

Odd. I'm not religious, but I occasionally meet people through work who do have faith. Some of these people I would say are a good advert for religion in general and Christianity in particular. Quakers and mennonites are the people of faith who most often fall into that category, for me anyway. Most often I have found them to be sincere, peace loving people. Yet your link casts doubt on their Christian credentials. Not many people in your club, is there?


I agree with you. I dont know much about Quakers but certainly Mennonites (also born out of a split from the catholic church) are typically good. As with anything I’m sure there are sections who I would say arent Christians but if they believe in the protestamt fundamental(s) - Christ is the son of God who died for the sins of man, and all need forgiveness through Christ alone - (ie. a gospel doctrine) then I would have little issue with calling them Christians

You're wrong about confirmation. I knew that because a Church of England friend once told me that he had been confirmed, but read for yourself here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... on_1.shtml
Your story about the man from America is bigoted bullshit, but it serves its purpose I'm sure: it's purpose being, of course, to reinforce the notion in gullible minds that 'themmuns' are a bunch of superstitious, feeble-minded idol worshippers.
And you still haven't explained to me why you mentioned Henry VIII as some sort of principled theologian, when he was simply a monarch desperate for a legitimate male heir and willing to break with Rome in order to divorce his wife.


You have got some of this quite wrong but I'll try to help you once more

You're wrong about confirmation. I knew that because a Church of England friend once told me that he had been confirmed, but read for yourself here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... on_1.shtml
I missed the CoI who indeed practise confirmation however the majority of Protestant Christian denominations don't and personally I don't see the need for it. But fair enough I got that wrong

Your story about the man from America is bigoted bullshit, but it serves its purpose I'm sure: it's purpose being, of course, to reinforce the notion in gullible minds that 'themmuns' are a bunch of superstitious, feeble-minded idol worshippers.
No the point is valid. It proves there is logical inconsistencies with Roman Catholic doctrine. As for your claim of "themmuns"... what a waste of time and a completely unnecessary comment. Firstly as I have stated many times, 1) i'm not trying to be divine, 2) I am stating theological facts, not, as I have said "kick the pope" type arguments and 3) I have never been to and refuse to attend 11th/12th/13th 'celebrations' because it is a waste of time. So a pretty classless comment, one that takes the argument completely out of context- if anything the celebration should be celebrating a theological split from the RC inconsistencies

And you still haven't explained to me why you mentioned Henry VIII as some sort of principled theologian, when he was simply a monarch desperate for a legitimate male heir and willing to break with Rome in order to divorce his wife.
Complete lack of understanding if you think I was claiming Henry VIII was a "principled theologian". He split from the catholic church for whatever reason, which by default started the reformation in Europe. That is undisputed regardless of what you put it to. Having studied history at both under and post grad level I would say I know what i'm talking about, but if you need to know it was Edward VI that drove, for a short few years, major religious reform in England. Whether what he done in that regard was just is a different matter, but that's a different conversation yet again

'It proves there is logical inconsistencies with Roman Catholic doctrine'
Religious faith is a logical inconsistency. Why single out Catholicism in that regard?
'I have never been to and refuse to attend 11th/12th/13th 'celebrations' because it is a waste of time.'
I don't know why you're bringing up the 12th July celebrations. I accused you of being a religious bigot, not an Ulster loyalist. I appreciate that there may, on occasions, be an overlap in these groups, but it shouldn't be assumed.
'He split from the catholic church for whatever reason'
He split from the Catholic church because it refused to allow him to set his wife aside and take another. Bit ironic, don't you think, that the church he founded proceeded to take a hard line on divorcees right up to modern times?
User avatar
promenader 2
Novice
 
Posts: 251
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:33 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby CIMANFOREVER » Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:41 pm

UlsterAreBrill wrote:I know that. But I see no reason why I (or anyone for that matter) should put up with constant anti-Christian memes or inaccuracies for the sake of "letting folks decide what they believe". It's just damned if I do, damned if I don't it seems


Or not, in my case :cheers: :thumleft: Sorry UAB, couldnt resist.XXOO
Exterminate all rational thought
User avatar
CIMANFOREVER
Chancellor to the King
 
Posts: 3100
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: The Dufferin

Re: Biblical matters

Postby UlsterAreBrill » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:27 am

Dave wrote:
UlsterAreBrill wrote:
It's not a case of asking for a theological essay or matching "my" doctrine (whatever that means). the bible clearly states that to get to heaven - which you go to when you die - not purgatory - is that you accept you are a sinner, trust Christ's finished work on the cross and his resurrection as the only way to have your sins forgiven then that is enough

As pointed out this is quite different from RC doctrine


On that basis, in your view do you think a roman catholic would be accepted into heaven?

I feel it would be very harsh to exclude on the basis of believing they need to do further works. They have tried their best and it is likely all they know but then are informed that they must burn eternally. Is this fair?

It got me thinking about how many people will be in hell. Any estimate I can come up with is well into the 10s of billions. It must be a big place.


It depends. Personally I think yes, there are Roman catholics who, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are repentant of their sin and trust in Christ alone. Theologically it’s quite a loaded question and one I would rather not make a very long post about. However if we are stereotyping and saying that all roman catholics are devout and follow the teachings of the Pope, then I would say no

Logically, If there was no doctrinal issue, why did Luther begin a reformation on the basis of what the bible says vs what the RC church said?? And if the bible says there is one way to heaven (faith vs works, as you say) then both sides cannot be right

Your question regarding fairness is a good one. Paul’s argument was that you either believe, or rely, (both in the context of Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Roman Catholics today) on the fact that you get to heaven on the basis of faith alone (sola fide, as Luther promoted) or on works. I think paul said, in a paraphrase, salvation is by grace alone so any many cannot boast. Fairness on the other hand, arguably is it is justice you are after then everyone would go to hell. But that is a different doctrinal question

I appreciate my response is not overly accurate or thorough... its late on a sunday night, i may come back and edit it at a later point :D
User avatar
UlsterAreBrill
Initiate
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:30 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby UlsterAreBrill » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:46 am

promenader 2 wrote:'It proves there is logical inconsistencies with Roman Catholic doctrine'
Religious faith is a logical inconsistency. Why single out Catholicism in that regard?
'I have never been to and refuse to attend 11th/12th/13th 'celebrations' because it is a waste of time.'
I don't know why you're bringing up the 12th July celebrations. I accused you of being a religious bigot, not an Ulster loyalist. I appreciate that there may, on occasions, be an overlap in these groups, but it shouldn't be assumed.
'He split from the catholic church for whatever reason'
He split from the Catholic church because it refused to allow him to set his wife aside and take another. Bit ironic, don't you think, that the church he founded proceeded to take a hard line on divorcees right up to modern times?


This whole discussion arose over the fact there are doctrinal differences between Christian demoninations, the largest being RC doctine.. One argument I would put to that is a logical one. Therefore, am I not allowed to “single out” the ideology I was first arguing against? Ironically, that in itself is something of a logical inconsistency

Your second argument is so full of holes. Firstly, it’s perfectly reasonable to bring up the twelfth if you’re going to through “themmens/ussans” around, which would infer some sort of loyalist bigotry, never midn the fact it doesnt really have any place on the forum. It’s a case of having intellectual, and theological, issues with Roman catholicism doctrine, not the people itself. But suit yourself. As for your comment on bigotry, again illogical. You too are a religious bigot by the definition of the word - intolerant towards others (myself) who hold a different religious belief. Which, is quite an unfounded accusation as, as has been said, the issue is a doctrinal one, not personal. It’s a matter of disagreement, not hatred, which is where you seem to be going wrong yourself

As the ‘whatever reason’, I dont know how you dont understand that. I’m literally saying, whatever the reason is, Henry VIII split from the church, FOR WHATEVER THE REASON MAY BE, began the reformation in England, and was carried on by his som. That’s historical fact, unless you want to dispute that too as “bigotry” or some nonsense
User avatar
UlsterAreBrill
Initiate
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:30 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby promenader 2 » Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:40 pm

UlsterAreBrill wrote:
promenader 2 wrote:'It proves there is logical inconsistencies with Roman Catholic doctrine'
Religious faith is a logical inconsistency. Why single out Catholicism in that regard?
'I have never been to and refuse to attend 11th/12th/13th 'celebrations' because it is a waste of time.'
I don't know why you're bringing up the 12th July celebrations. I accused you of being a religious bigot, not an Ulster loyalist. I appreciate that there may, on occasions, be an overlap in these groups, but it shouldn't be assumed.
'He split from the catholic church for whatever reason'
He split from the Catholic church because it refused to allow him to set his wife aside and take another. Bit ironic, don't you think, that the church he founded proceeded to take a hard line on divorcees right up to modern times?


This whole discussion arose over the fact there are doctrinal differences between Christian demoninations, the largest being RC doctine.. One argument I would put to that is a logical one. Therefore, am I not allowed to “single out” the ideology I was first arguing against? Ironically, that in itself is something of a logical inconsistency

Your second argument is so full of holes. Firstly, it’s perfectly reasonable to bring up the twelfth if you’re going to through “themmens/ussans” around, which would infer some sort of loyalist bigotry, never midn the fact it doesnt really have any place on the forum. It’s a case of having intellectual, and theological, issues with Roman catholicism doctrine, not the people itself. But suit yourself. As for your comment on bigotry, again illogical. You too are a religious bigot by the definition of the word - intolerant towards others (myself) who hold a different religious belief. Which, is quite an unfounded accusation as, as has been said, the issue is a doctrinal one, not personal. It’s a matter of disagreement, not hatred, which is where you seem to be going wrong yourself

As the ‘whatever reason’, I dont know how you dont understand that. I’m literally saying, whatever the reason is, Henry VIII split from the church, FOR WHATEVER THE REASON MAY BE, began the reformation in England, and was carried on by his som. That’s historical fact, unless you want to dispute that too as “bigotry” or some nonsense

'This whole discussion arose over the fact there are doctrinal differences between Christian demoninations, the largest being RC doctine.. One argument I would put to that is a logical one. Therefore, am I not allowed to “single out” the ideology I was first arguing against? Ironically, that in itself is something of a logical inconsistency'
The point I am making is that religious belief in general, all of it, is a logical inconsistency. Debating which religious doctrine is correct is like two neighbours arguing over whether or not the wings of the fairies living at the bottom of the garden are made of gossamer. None of it makes any sense, so holding up Catholic doctrine as an example of a logical inconsistency is a bit silly.
'it’s perfectly reasonable to bring up the twelfth if you’re going to through “themmens/ussans” around, which would infer some sort of loyalist bigotry'
It's not perfectly reasonable at all. Religious bigotry is not confined to Norn Iron. There are religious bigots throughout the world and in all religions, therefore mentioning the loyal orders is to reduce the discussion to a very local level indeed.
'intolerant towards others (myself) who hold a different religious belief'
I don't hold any religious beliefs, so I don't see how I can be intolerant of someone who holds a different one.
'As the ‘whatever reason’, I dont know how you dont understand that'
I do understand it. I understand that you do not wish to acknowledge - FOR WHATEVER THE REASON MAY BE - that the man who broke with Rome to found the Anglican church did so, not for any religious reason, but simply because he wanted a divorce and the Pope wouldn't grant him one. Not very biblical, is it?
User avatar
promenader 2
Novice
 
Posts: 251
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:33 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby Dave » Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:44 pm

UlsterAreBrill wrote:
Dave wrote:
UlsterAreBrill wrote:
It's not a case of asking for a theological essay or matching "my" doctrine (whatever that means). the bible clearly states that to get to heaven - which you go to when you die - not purgatory - is that you accept you are a sinner, trust Christ's finished work on the cross and his resurrection as the only way to have your sins forgiven then that is enough

As pointed out this is quite different from RC doctrine


On that basis, in your view do you think a roman catholic would be accepted into heaven?

I feel it would be very harsh to exclude on the basis of believing they need to do further works. They have tried their best and it is likely all they know but then are informed that they must burn eternally. Is this fair?

It got me thinking about how many people will be in hell. Any estimate I can come up with is well into the 10s of billions. It must be a big place.


It depends. Personally I think yes, there are Roman catholics who, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are repentant of their sin and trust in Christ alone. Theologically it’s quite a loaded question and one I would rather not make a very long post about. However if we are stereotyping and saying that all roman catholics are devout and follow the teachings of the Pope, then I would say no

Logically, If there was no doctrinal issue, why did Luther begin a reformation on the basis of what the bible says vs what the RC church said?? And if the bible says there is one way to heaven (faith vs works, as you say) then both sides cannot be right

Your question regarding fairness is a good one. Paul’s argument was that you either believe, or rely, (both in the context of Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Roman Catholics today) on the fact that you get to heaven on the basis of faith alone (sola fide, as Luther promoted) or on works. I think paul said, in a paraphrase, salvation is by grace alone so any many cannot boast. Fairness on the other hand, arguably is it is justice you are after then everyone would go to hell. But that is a different doctrinal question

I appreciate my response is not overly accurate or thorough... its late on a sunday night, i may come back and edit it at a later point :D
I personally don't think any human could anything bad enough to warrant going to hell. Hell as it is commonly known. How do you define it yourself?

This is partly where christianity unravelled for me.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 19585
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby UlsterAreBrill » Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:27 pm

Dave wrote:
UlsterAreBrill wrote:
Dave wrote:
UlsterAreBrill wrote:
It's not a case of asking for a theological essay or matching "my" doctrine (whatever that means). the bible clearly states that to get to heaven - which you go to when you die - not purgatory - is that you accept you are a sinner, trust Christ's finished work on the cross and his resurrection as the only way to have your sins forgiven then that is enough

As pointed out this is quite different from RC doctrine


On that basis, in your view do you think a roman catholic would be accepted into heaven?

I feel it would be very harsh to exclude on the basis of believing they need to do further works. They have tried their best and it is likely all they know but then are informed that they must burn eternally. Is this fair?

It got me thinking about how many people will be in hell. Any estimate I can come up with is well into the 10s of billions. It must be a big place.


It depends. Personally I think yes, there are Roman catholics who, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are repentant of their sin and trust in Christ alone. Theologically it’s quite a loaded question and one I would rather not make a very long post about. However if we are stereotyping and saying that all roman catholics are devout and follow the teachings of the Pope, then I would say no

Logically, If there was no doctrinal issue, why did Luther begin a reformation on the basis of what the bible says vs what the RC church said?? And if the bible says there is one way to heaven (faith vs works, as you say) then both sides cannot be right

Your question regarding fairness is a good one. Paul’s argument was that you either believe, or rely, (both in the context of Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Roman Catholics today) on the fact that you get to heaven on the basis of faith alone (sola fide, as Luther promoted) or on works. I think paul said, in a paraphrase, salvation is by grace alone so any many cannot boast. Fairness on the other hand, arguably is it is justice you are after then everyone would go to hell. But that is a different doctrinal question

I appreciate my response is not overly accurate or thorough... its late on a sunday night, i may come back and edit it at a later point :D
I personally don't think any human could anything bad enough to warrant going to hell. Hell as it is commonly known. How do you define it yourself?

This is partly where christianity unravelled for me.


That's a fair enough objection because in reality, humanly speaking, there are "worse" people than others

There isn't a lot in the Bible about hell surprisingly (although more about hell and heaven). A place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is mentioned quite a few times, it is referred to as "lake of fire" and in Luke 13 or 16 (i think) there was a parable Jesus told of the man, in hell, who asked another man, in heaven, (Lazarus) for water to cool his tongue, and also to warn his family so they wouldn't end up there too

That's just off the top of my head but there are probably more references or descriptions else where

Granted you wont see it like this, but if you consider the holiness of God (Isaiah 6, not even the angels could look at him) and the seriousness of mans sin, AKA they are polar opposites.

All men are born in to sin, there is nothing they can do about it unless they repent
In that regard, then, as I say, if it is justice you want on account of "human standard", then perhaps some/most should deserve to get to heaven, I get that

However, that's not how it works - for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In that regard, what justice would really be would be for a Holy God to send all to hell. So, as a Christian, it is mercy and grace I am thankful for, and that is the way to heaven - through the mercy and grace of Christ on the cross - not by works. I hope that makes some

That probably sounds like madness to most... but would I worry :D
User avatar
UlsterAreBrill
Initiate
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:30 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Postby BaggyTrousers » Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:43 am

Brillo, I will preface my remarks with an expression that I suspect that you are a thoroughly decent, well-intentioned chap, just like many Christians known to me. However, there are a few things that are worthy of comment from my reading of this thread.

Henry the Eighth was an utter kunt who never did a thing in his entire life that was not for his own selfish reasons. Your "for whatever reason", gave me what my sainted mother would have described as "the dry boke", that horrendous wretching when your stomach is turning somersaults but there's divil the bit for it to eject.

I do understand that you used that line almost certainly because you understand the fact that the man was an absolute horror of a humanoid and ascribing some considered act of foresight in creating your particular line of Christian faith as anything but "for whatever reason" would taint it by association such was his degree of kuntishness. The fact is he wanted rid of a troublesome bint and the Pope wasn't wearing it, so Henry threw his toys out of the pram, much as PWR incorrectly ascribed an act to me. (I'd refer him to Fermain & even Father Jack to put him right on his misconception), however, I digress.

On a different matter, I would personally have no truck with any bounder who has faith in Jesus Christ alone. Don't you understand that I am the Jesus of Suburbia and I am a jealous Jesus, much like your mate, ould Beardie.

Finally, for I neither wish to tarry here nor make a foolish attempt to dissuade you from your faith, you make the fatal error of using "the bible says" to people who do not share your faith. People such as I, though limited in our knowledge of the bible, are not ignorant of its content, how could we be when the education system for decades demanded we should be indoctrinated as children, both in school and, if you were susceptible to the church, there also.

I intend to be as kind as possible in my description of the bible but it's hard. As the instrument of a system of population control it has been strangely successful but by any measure, it is a tissue of contradictory tales with little consistency of message and not even remote hint of credibility as a historical record. In a bad mood, I'd describe it as a poor man's collection of whoppers wrapped in an aura of splendour but promising damnation should one step far out of line. Forgiveness my manky ould hole, burn yabastard is its threat and promise.

No point whatsoever in responding, to me at least, I will not be engaging. Before I go, I may have told you this before but...
I rode a woman from Coleraine once, not great, but sure it was better than walking.

Eh.........................goodbye. :D
Support the team and coaching staff. Forget the rest,BUT NEVER MOVE ON.

FIRFU - FU'CK YOU ONE AND ALL, CAVING IN TO SPONSORS, SACKING THE INNOCENT FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, SHAMEFUL BASTA'RDS. YOU'VE LOST MY SUPPORT & I HOPE MORE ULSTERMEN & WOMEN
User avatar
BaggyTrousers
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 30200
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: España

Previous


  • Advertisement

Return to The Back Room 'Lock In'

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Recent Forum Topics

cron
!-- Piwik -->