Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[xzins]

Your expertise is amazing.

????

[Forest Keeper]

Your children are blessed because of your perspective on life. If they don't know that now....they will.

Thank you so much! It sounds like you have very well-raised children. :)

[Ping-Pong]

It sounds like you have very well-raised children. :)

Actually, in spite of my stupidity of agreeing with Dr. Spock, or the "I'm okay you're okay" philosophy, that was so prevalent at that time - they turned out to be terrific. My wish, now that I'm able to look back, is that I showed more love and taught them more about God. As none of us can go back, I do that now, even though they are both grown with families of their own.

[kosta50]

????

I was being sarcastic. None of what you wrote is true.

[MarkBsnr]

Do you have any idea how foreign your statements are to the message of the Gospels?

“If you follow every fleshly whim, then obviously you were NOT predestined to go to heaven.

Godly discipline and good works and wanting to serve the Lord is evidence of our election.”

Kosta is very accurate - this is the ultimate narcissism. Calvin was an elitist tyrant and this concept appealed to him very much. It also justified his reign of terror - if you weren’t of the elect and therefore going straight to hell, then surely he would be justified treating you on earth like the lowly scum that you were.

[xzins]

Didn’t you say the Eden story was mythical? the Red Sea parting? The ax head floating? etc., etc.???

[MarkBsnr]

Oh, the naughty lusts are ever so much more appealing.

And my wife is away with our oldest daughter and the middle boys at her cousin’s this weekend.

****arrrrghhhh*******must fight lusts*******must fight lusts*****

at least until tomorrow night. :)

[MarkBsnr]

We Latins have been more Protestantized - to our diminishment and, frankly, shame. And it is a shame. We are looking to the Orthodox more to reclaim our history and our culture.

Our numbers? Sure, we’ve got a majority of God-fearing good people, but we’ve also got the likes of Pelosi, Biden, the Kennedy whelps, Daschle, Durbin, Kucinich et al.

I am just barely old enough to remember the Ontario blue laws which forebade most stuff on Sundays. It made certain things inconvenient, but overall, it helped strengthen family, and religious, life.

[kosta50]

How can I die because of the sin of a Myth, as you have insinuated about that story, and Eden, and Serpent, etc.?

At some point, either human beings were always fallen or became fallen. People who deny archaeological evidence might as well deny medical science or any science they so fervently believe in when it comes to making their lives more comfortable or when using biblical search engines.

It's only when science "refuses" to verify what the Bible says that science becomes ridiculed, "bad," "unreliable," even "stupid."

I wonder if you ever read Genesis 9. In it, God makes his covenant with Noah, his sons, and every living creature (birds, fish, etc.) who were with him (v. 8-11). God makes covenant with animals? (but much later only with Israel)

In verse 12, God says that this covenant he made is for all generations to come. Yet we know that, after Moses was long dead and gone, God announced a new covenant because—get this—the disbelieving Israelites corrupted the first one! What happened? God didn't "know" they would when he made his first covenant?

And since the first covenant promised "no more floods to destroy the earth," God "tied" a (rain)bow in the clouds to "remind" himself of that promise (v. 13-16)! Apparently, if the Bible is to believed literally, there were no rainbows before the first covenant! The sunlight did not separate into colors when passing through denser media! The physics of the world were not yet "fully developed" I suppose!

With all due respect, taken literally, this is ridiculous and untrue. Maybe you can read this uncritically and accept it as "fact," but I can't. A God who has to tie a bow in order to remember, and the assertion that rainbows did not exist (never mind the reason why they exist) is just a little "above" my level of acceptable pretense.

Now, does this challenge one's beliefs? Of course it does. It doesn't mean that one cannot understand this allegorically and realize that this is how the writer could best describe God's revelation for the people of that time to believe.

But, if the only "true" believers are those who read the Bible literally, then I suppose I am not a believer.

[Ping-Pong]

They don't have to believe in the scriptures because they have their church and, of course, their church could never steer them wrong......How do they know? ....Because the scriptures tell them so.

P-Marlowe has a great point Kosta. It does seem the only scriptures you agree with are the ones about the church. Most others you seem to hold in disdain.

I go back to His Word - "I come in the volume of the Book", not, I come in the volume of the church, or the volume of man. Or..."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", not... In the beginning was the church, or in the beginning was man.

[wmfights]

Let’s see, what’s left?

The only thing left when you throw out sections of Scripture "because they are only mythology" is a church that claims it has all the power to determine what is orthodoxy and who and how individuals are saved.

[P-Marlowe]

How can I die because of the sin of a Myth, as you have insinuated about that story, and Eden, and Serpent, etc.? I don't need salvation from a myth. I just need a rewrite. :>)

This is where the forbidden pomegranates come in.

[kosta50]

When the mutual excommunications were removed and "committed to oblivion" in 1964 at the Vatican II, there was a real chance for us to approach each other with the authoirty of a Council and begin work on re-union. It was precisely the protestantization that followed the Vatican II that immeditely put such effors to a standstill.

The Catholic Church went in the opposite direction, removing the tradition rather than strengthening patristic ties. We Ortodox watched in horror as chalices turned from gold to glass, and Catholic churches began to look like Protestant prayer barns, and the pre-sanctified Gifts in some instances became grapefruit juice, even coffee, and hosts turned into chocolate chip cookies.

But, thank God, the Church is resiliant and bounced back after only 40 or so years! :) In church time, that is a heartbeat...

Pelosi, Biden, the Kennedy whelps, Daschle, Durbin, Kucinich—and John Kerry and Rudy Guliani to add to the list, are the product of those post-Vatican II years of fall. They grew up in that Church, which frighteningly resembled the Episcopal churches, where you could do just about anything and still call yourself a "Catholic."

Blue laws were reminders that this is not our world but God's world, the way the tree in the Garden reminded Adam and Eve that their freedom is limited and that man must choose between Good or evil, bearing the consequences of that choice: God, who is life, or sin which is death.

No one ever said the world was created entirely for our comfort 24/7/365. While we matter as individulas, it's everyone's world and our freedom ends where the other person s freedom begins.

Narcissism is the work of the devil, as each individual puts himself above others and makes himself a "god." We call that "freedom." Freedom is to be free from fear and free from hungar and free from violence and hate, etc. It is not freedom to sin.

But if you believe your sins are "paid for," and your salvation is "guranteed," becoming a narcissist is easy, almost "natural."

So, we have dismanteled all the inconvenient obstacles, incuding the blue laws, lest God get in the way of our "freedom."

[kosta50]

P-Marlowe has a great point Kosta. It does seem the only scriptures you agree with are the ones about the church. Most others you seem to hold in disdain

I realize that you agree with him and that's okay. I don't speak for the Church. My opinions are my opinions. So, before either of you satanize the Church, I suggest you find out exactly what the Church says about the Bible. You are free to disagree with me all you want, but if you are going to ridicule the Church then have some facts in your hand. Otherwise you are arguing from ignorance and prejudice.

I don't identify you with Luther or Calvin, but with your own selves. It would be proper to leave the Church out of this and direct your comments at my opinions.

You personally refuse to know more about the Bible but take the pretty bound volumes that you have at home as the "original" product. That's fine with me. But don't try to peddle your own conviction as universal truth.

If you really do not believe and follow any man, then how can you follow your own convictions? Why is what you believe any more true than that of any other human or even the Church? It is placing yourself above everyone else while claiming you don't follow any man.

[kosta50]

But be assured that we do both love our wives very much

I don't love my wives. :)

[wmfights]

K:If you believe you are the elect, no matter what you do you are forgiven already. It's a religion tailor-made to man's taste.

Everytime I see this type of thinking I realize how weak the EO and RC believe GOD to be. It has been made very clear by EO and RC posters that your church does not believe in the power of the HOLY SPIRIT to transform the inner heart of the elect.

Mark 1:8 I indeed baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.

John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that he may abide with you forever-the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

[MarkBsnr]

The whole problem is that of the concept of the elect.

The logical extension of such a concept is that the elect may do as they wish since they are going to be saved. Futher, the non-elect may do as they wish since they are not going to be saved.

But it flies in the face of the Biblical concept that all men are called to God, that God wishes hell on nobody, and that it is by your actions whether you accept or reject God. Do you have responsibility for your actions?

The premise of the elect automatically relegates us to irresponsibility, which contradicts great swathes of the Gospels, never mind the entire Bible.

[wmfights]

I stole your verse just before I read this.

We share the greatest source of all, SCRIPTURE!

The message of salvation is so clear it seems foolish to the unsaved.

John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Understanding all the finer points is where the complexity is found, but not in the message of salvation. It always goes back to one thing, FAITH in JESUS our LORD and SAVIOUR.

[P-Marlowe]

Everytime I see this type of thinking I realize how weak the EO and RC believe GOD to be.

Exactly. I don't think weak is the word as much as deliberately and calculatingly impotent. God creates everyone to go to heaven, but he has no power on his own to save anyone, instead he lets all men have a choice in whether or not to save themselves.

I see nobody bothered to answer the question of "Why would a loving God give men free will"? The fact of the matter is that if men have free will, the only way they can be saved is to jettison that free will, since free will is nothing more than an albatross around men's necks.

Catholics seem to worship the idea of free will rather than the omnipotence of God. To Catholics the scriptures are murky, God is impotent and FREE WILL reigns inviolate and supreme on the throne.

..............

[kosta50]

No you dismiss it because there is no verifiable evidence. You dismiss the Exodus because there is no verifiable evidence. You dismiss much of what Jesus attested to because there is no verifiable evidence

That's how we operate P-Marlowe, especially in your profession. Imagine where we would be if courts operated without verifiable evidence?

Everyone's beliefs are based on some kind of information we take as "evidence." You take bible as evidence.

I didn't say all this never happened. It may have happened but not the way it is described because there is no evidence to corroborate the Bible.

The Great Flood could be the great deluge of the Black Sea, as few hundred cultures in that region of the world have flood myths. The Tigris and Euphrates have also been known to flood, with sediments several feet deep. In the case of the Black Sea, the sediments are as thick as one hundred feet!

Such catastrophes could have only been understood by ancient peoples as God's wrath. Imagine the Dec 2005 tsunami disaster. I am sure a couple of thousand years ago the description would have involved God's hands in it.

Did it happen? Most probably. Did it happen the way the Bible narrates it? Probably not, because there is no evidence to corroborate the biblical story. Is it a lie? Most probably not since some kind of flood did happen for all those cultures to have myths about it.

Did Jews ever live in Egypt? It's questionable. Did they leave and cause the Egyptian army to drown? Unlikely. Ramses' son conquered Canaan a generation after the biblical Exodus and never punished the Hebrews for their act.

Is there evidence of Egyptian presence on Sinai around 14th century BC? Yes. Is there evidence of few hundred Hebrews roaming the Sinai for 40 years. No. The Israeli arheologicsts have been digging for some evidence ever since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

How do you conceal evidence of an entire city of few hundred thousand people (I believe the Bible says 600,000 men! not counting women and children), without a trace is more than a valid question, when archaeologists can find remnants of smaller settlements without any problems?

If there were Jews in Egypt, they could have left gradually in small groups, perhaps even over a 40 year period.

It is difficult to reconcile what the Bible says and what the extra-biblical evidence shows. It's a challenge. It's not what we want to hear. It makes people unsettled. It shakes their confidence and the very foundation of life, which is hope. It scares them. So, they dismiss it.

And that's fine. We all approach our existence as best as we can cope. Some choose to face the challenge; others to hide in a corner and bury their faces in a book.