Why can't we Christians just accept each other's faiths............. (agnostic, scripture, Jesus)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because the Christian churches misunderstood Christ's message and have created dogmas and doctrines that they think we need to believe ABOUT Christ . . . instead of following His instructions to His disciples. They will continue to bicker over irrelevant beliefs ABOUT Christ until they realize that what Christ wanted was for us to follow Him in "love of God and each other" daily and repent when we don't. Everything else is human vanity and hubris . . . (and of course it keeps the church coffers filled with member contributions).
I've read way to many threads in here where a poster of one Christian faith has jumped down the throat of another Christian poster of a different faith. Why is there so much hatred between our faiths? We all have one major and most important thing in common. We believe that Jesus Christ is our savior and reedemer. why must we all bicker so much among ourselves about our differences in getting to Christ? Doesn't seem very "Christian" to me.
Truthfully, it all boils down to eternal torment vs universalism. If you believe in eternal torment you're welcomed with open arms for psychological reasons we've discussed briefly on other threads and which I won't get into here. But as soon as it comes out that you believe in universalism you're branded a "heretic" (as I have often been called here) disillusioned, sometimes "demon-possessed" (I kid you not).
This single issue has caused more riff, hatred and, yes, bloodshed (more bloodshed between "Chrstians") than all the wars combined, it is that divisive an issue.
When one believes they have a lock on truth they stop searching for it. When I decided to make my goal Jesus's instruction to "seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you," it gave me eyes to discern some important lessons from groups I really know little about.
Katzpur, some of your postings have given me more respect for your faith which Billy Graham once called a cult, but rescinded that view once Romney was nominated for the Presidency (thank God politics doesn't play a role in our religious outlook on life ). Specifically that Mormons DO maintain that individuals have a right and duty to read and understand the scriptures for themselves.
Pcamps, Nateswift, MysticD and others who appear to me to be universalists (how can you possibly believe God will not punish offenders of His commandments! ), have shown strong tendencies toward promoting the works of Christ through loving others. My belief as well.
One poster, whose screen name has slipped my mind, was arguing AGAINST Catholic beliefs but posted a link to a statement by the last Pope regarding view of Scripture as inspired in its entirety, but not necessarily in its parts. That is a concept I have held for years which is rejected by Protestants who believe single verses of scripture are equally inspired apart from running the thread of truth through ALL scripture. That is why in the seventeenth century some Christians could lift an OT verse from the context of the whole Bible and declare that "God will not suffer a witch to live among us," and feel morally justified in executing a score of women in Salem. So I now realize I have some Catholic concepts in my faith as well.
My own scriptural study and prayer has been moving me away from my lifelong Pauline roots of justification by faith alone to a belief in faith and works as two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the other (please don't digress from this thread, I state this only to explain how faith can grow and/or change when seeking truth). And we must persevere in our service to God. Such has always been the stance of the RCC and of many Protestant groups as well. My faith is now more "Kingdom" oriented, emphasizing the teachings of Jesus over the teachings of Paul. To me it is now more important to emulate the works of Jesus and to live in a state of repentance, than to have "right beliefs" which is a definition of orthodoxy.
By accepting new faith principles I once rejected and by discovering similarities to "cultist" groups and even to a stodgy old RCC (my former thought process), it has helped me to be less judgmental of others as people, while not necessarily converting me doctrinally into those groups or faiths. I think I may always hold to concepts revealed to me spiritually and am unlikely to ever again fit into any denominational role. In short, I'm likely to find myself equally condemned by all!!! .
The bottom line is, why shouldn't I concentrate on those areas where I find something in common with others than spend time trying to find division with them? I am certainly going to stand for what I consider to be God's principles when someone begins a thread that I feel may mislead a lost person or new convert, such as faith in God is mandatory, but living for God is optional. But a thread such as the one on the praying to the Virgin Mary? I don't know a thing about it. I have no idea what spiritual strength it brings or doesn't bring to someone else. While I do not practice it what role can I play in strengthening anyone's faith by condemning it?
If we spent more time seeking what similarities we have rather than spending time on our differences, maybe as Christians we could turn the world upside down again.
>>The RCC has changed and is now ahead of the curve. <<
QUESTION:
Are you admitting then that Catholic teachings can change?
Unless God can change his mind, changed teachings or teaching capable of being changed are not of divine origin.
It's an underlying tenet of the RCC. They can change and adapt however they see fit. If the RCC convened a new Eccumenical Council that decided that it is required of all good Catholics to wear hats and sunscreen, then to them that is direction directly from God and completely valid.
I think the principal of it is quite valid: When the weather changes or new unforeseen dangers appear in the waters, God should have the ability to actually steer the ship. I just do personally not accept that the RCC's authority to receive that direction from God. Their history of extreme abuse of this presumed right to steer the Church and Kingdom of God on Earth is contradictory. I seriously doubt God is in the business of bloody conquest, prostitution, bribery, Simony, nepotism, torture, massacre of members of the flock that have strayed, forced conversion on penalty of death, bloody persecution of non-Christians, practices directly contradicting the teachings of Christ and the apostles and widespread corruption. I think the Church and Kingdom of God had long since lost its way by the time the Council of Nicaea happens. I think the seeds of disunity were sown long before 325 AD. Christianity was mostly just doing the best they could with what was left of the original genuine Church and Kingdom of God. They tried to force unity. This worked for a time, but without God leading the way disunity was a foregone conclusion. Just a matter of time really.
But as I said, the RCC does claim the right to adapt and change with the times in whatever way they see fit.
Because the Christian churches misunderstood Christ's message and have created dogmas and doctrines that they think we need to believe ABOUT Christ . . . instead of following His instructions to His disciples. They will continue to bicker over irrelevant beliefs ABOUT Christ until they realize that what Christ wanted was for us to follow Him in "love of God and each other" daily and repent when we don't. Everything else is human vanity and hubris . . . (and of course it keeps the church coffers filled with member contributions).
^^^^
THIS.
Truth is, Christians can agree on what's most important, but instead they prefer to bicker and condemn one another instead.
Pcamps, Nateswift, MysticD and others who appear to me to be universalists (how can you possibly believe God will not punish offenders of His commandments! ), have shown strong tendencies toward promoting the works of Christ through loving others. My belief as well.
This is a widespread and continual misundersanding of Christian Universalism that seems to have a permanence and life of its own among opponents of it. Chastisement is for a purpose and there can be no purpose to an eternal chastisement. If the chastisement cannot produce change and remove the consequences . . . it is evil, period. Universalists that I know all believe we WILL reap what we sow, Warden . . . just not an eternal unalterable one . . . which is far more than we could ever sow in our brief time on earth.
It's an underlying tenet of the RCC. They can change and adapt however they see fit. If the RCC convened a new Eccumenical Council that decided that it is required of all good Catholics to wear hats and sunscreen, then to them that is direction directly from God and completely valid.
I think the principal of it is quite valid: When the weather changes or new unforeseen dangers appear in the waters, God should have the ability to actually steer the ship. I just do personally not accept that the RCC's authority to receive that direction from God. Their history of extreme abuse of this presumed right to steer the Church and Kingdom of God on Earth is contradictory. I seriously doubt God is in the business of bloody conquest, prostitution, bribery, Simony, nepotism, torture, massacre of members of the flock that have strayed, forced conversion on penalty of death, bloody persecution of non-Christians, practices directly contradicting the teachings of Christ and the apostles and widespread corruption. I think the Church and Kingdom of God had long since lost its way by the time the Council of Nicaea happens. I think the seeds of disunity were sown long before 325 AD. Christianity was mostly just doing the best they could with what was left of the original genuine Church and Kingdom of God. They tried to force unity. This worked for a time, but without God leading the way disunity was a foregone conclusion. Just a matter of time really.
But as I said, the RCC does claim the right to adapt and change with the times in whatever way they see fit.
The original Christian Church, the RCC is pure. However, the men that run the church are imperfect. But, these men are no more or less perfect than the men that run other churches.
Her are some additional changes: Accepting evolution and the Big Bang under the direction of God, the creator.
To expect Christians from this era to have the primitive barbaric mindset of biblical times is extremely naive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seeking truth
). Specifically that Mormons DO maintain that individuals have a right and duty to read and understand the scriptures for themselves.
), have shown strong tendencies toward promoting the works of Christ through loving others. My belief as well.
. 
