Biblical matters

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

Moderator: Moderators

promenader 2
Initiate
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:33 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by promenader 2 »

UlsterAreBrill wrote:
promenader 2 wrote:
UlsterAreBrill wrote:
promenader 2 wrote:
UlsterAreBrill wrote:http://www.thewicketgate.org/2015/05/ch ... ella-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?
CIMANFOREVER
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: The Dufferin

Re: Biblical matters

Post by CIMANFOREVER »

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
UlsterAreBrill
Initiate
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:30 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by UlsterAreBrill »

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
UlsterAreBrill
Initiate
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:30 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by UlsterAreBrill »

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
promenader 2
Initiate
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:33 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by promenader 2 »

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
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 24532
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Dave »

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?
UlsterAreBrill
Initiate
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:30 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by UlsterAreBrill »

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
BaggyTrousers
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 30337
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: España

Re: Biblical matters

Post by BaggyTrousers »

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
NEVER MOVE ON. Years on, I cannot ever watch Ireland with anything but indifference, I continue to wish for the imminent death of Donal Spring, the FIRFUC's executioner of Wee Paddy & Wee Stu, and I hate the FIRFUCs with undiminished passion.
justinr73
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 5677
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by justinr73 »

So Folau is at it again then.

Apparently, Hell awaits me for a variety of reasons.
rumncoke
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by rumncoke »

Very simply my reading of this thread is that it exposes one truth,

That your first assumption will define your attitude and your conclusion . If you assume there is no God -- then you will search for evidence to support that assumption.

If you assume there is a God you will seek to find his purpose and evidence of his love and the realisation that humankind is incapable to provide its own salvation.

One assumption will deny you inspiration and an open mind , the other has inspired many to the benefit of mankind (or to be PC humankind )and provides a hope of salvation.

The assumption is yours
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
User avatar
pwrmoore
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11885
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:51 am
Location: East Belfast

Re: Biblical matters

Post by pwrmoore »

rumncoke wrote:Very simply my reading of this thread is that it exposes one truth,

That your first assumption will define your attitude and your conclusion . If you assume there is no God -- then you will search for evidence to support that assumption.

If you assume there is a God you will seek to find his purpose and evidence of his love and the realisation that humankind is incapable to provide its own salvation.

One assumption will deny you inspiration and an open mind , the other has inspired many to the benefit of mankind (or to be PC humankind )and provides a hope of salvation.

The assumption is yours

Agreed rum. The assumption that there is a God has caused many to close their minds to any other possibility and has been responsible for numerous wars, genocides, pogroms and purges - usually carried out in His name. While the other has allowed the freedom for men and women of intellect to think freely and explore the sciences and gift the world with knowledge and understanding capable of making all out lives better ( or worse when utilized by those of closed minds for their own purposes).

I imagine that was the main drift of your piece.... :stir:
Paul.

C'mon Ulsterrrrrrrrr! :red:
rumncoke
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by rumncoke »

I like the stir -- but reverse the logic---- very little of the knowledge gained by mankind has been used to the benefit of mankind all we have done since the hour of creation is develop better means and ways to kill each other and create more reasons for doing so based on greed and envy( both individually and collectively.)

The world we live in is full of "Haves "and "Have Nots "and the" Have Nots" want to the 'Haves " have and there are more "Have Nots "than "Haves " and the problem with the "Haves " they don't realise what they have and want more with the politicians of both the "Haves " and the " Have Nots" in the vanguard for wanting more.

"Human Nature" is the cause of war not religion, the most imperfect and destructive thing( for want of a better word ) in this world is human kind.

And then we vote for idiots to lead us. ( the USA , The EU , GB , Norn Ireland etc) and have their finger is on the button, trigger or in position to instruct the generals etc.

The world is an idiot away from mass destruction -- WE ARE DOOMED MR MANNERING !!! WE ARE DOOMED

And while I jest somewhat the is a sad truth in the statement.

The purpose of the Clown was to make the King look sane .


'
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 24532
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Dave »

FFS...

Someone is clearly not reading my posts. I have consistently said that I am led by the evidence. In light of new evidence, I will change my mind. Having reviewed the evidence (or lack there of), I am confident in the view that most religions are bunkum.

Many theists use emotional reasoning, 'it feels true so it must be true' and, in my view, misinterpret internal somatic experiences. Christians mostly believe the same as atheists of the other religions that they do not ascribe to (the foreign ones). Everyone is entitled to a personal belief or faith, but must be aware that having 'faith' is an admission that you do not have knowledge that your religion is true. Thus dickheads like Folau should not go around making statements, as if they are in a position of knowledge.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
pwrmoore
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11885
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:51 am
Location: East Belfast

Re: Biblical matters

Post by pwrmoore »

rumncoke wrote:I like the stir -- but reverse the logic----
'

Sorry rum but faith and logic are mutually exclusive. Those who apply logic cannot accept it as indisputable that a god or gods exist because it cannot be proven. Those who have faith and believe in the existence of something that cannot be proven are accepting that they are not driven by logic.
Paul.

C'mon Ulsterrrrrrrrr! :red:
jean valjean
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3093
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:03 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by jean valjean »

Donald RUMsfelt.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Post Reply