Ask a Protestant Christian

[El_Machinae]

Okay! If people're used to thinking of Lucifer as the devil, then my $64,000 question is ...

What do you think came first? "Light" or "the Light Bearer"? And if you're used to thinking of Lucifer as "the morning star", do you think(/suspect, /guess, /whatever) that he was created before or after "mornings" and "stars"?

What's the vibe of the answer to that question, in your church?

And have you read the "Left Behind" books?
And have you read this book?

 

[PeteAtoms]

What scriptural or theologian sources make the case that God is only good and not the source of evil?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Okay! If people're used to thinking of Lucifer as the devil, then my $64,000 question is ...

What do you think came first? "Light" or "the Light Bearer"? And if you're used to thinking of Lucifer as "the morning star", do you think(/suspect, /guess, /whatever) that he was created before or after "mornings" and "stars"?

I don't understand the question. I have no idea if Lucifer was created during the six days or beforehand.

And have you read the "Left Behind" books?

Yes, all 40 kids books and all 15 adult books.

I agree with SOME of their theology, but I don't take it as gospel truth, and I think A LOT of what they believe is false. But its a great story nonetheless.

And have you read this book?

I read part of it, but I never finished it, I can't remember why. Its something I'd like to read eventually.

 

[Perfection]

When I'm rotting in hell, will you send me a care package?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus

Is that a no?

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't understand the question. I have no idea if Lucifer was created during the six days or beforehand.

Yeah, you're understanding the question!
Why would they call him "Light Bringer" if there was no such thing as light? Or worse! How could he be called the morning star before such stars existed?

Lucy: Hey, God, what does my name mean? "Light bringer"

JUST A SEC

LET THERE BE LIGHT

Lucy: Oooooohhhhh So, where do I bring it?


How come people don't know when Satan was created, and when he fell?

 

[timtofly]

Yeah, you're understanding the question!
Why would they call him "Light Bringer" if there was no such thing as light? Or worse! How could he be called the morning star before such stars existed?

Lucy: Hey, God, what does my name mean? "Light bringer"

JUST A SEC

LET THERE BE LIGHT

Lucy: Oooooohhhhh So, where do I bring it?


How come people don't know when Satan was created, and when he fell?

I do not think it makes a difference either way, but here goes: Going by fallen star, they were/are the stars, unscientifically speaking. Satan is his etheral form and the Devil is his physical form. When the third of the stars left the heavens, it "caused" things we are just now seeing or missed, but I digress. Those angels are no longer in their "star" form and dwell in the realm of our atmosphere as etheral beings. I digress again, but unidentified flying angels are their bodily forms. I believe angels can hold any physical form they choose. The serpant, as men, maybe even material ie. the force of a tornado, or hurricane, or any combination of man/beast they are "told" to by their master satan, if God Wills.

 

[Jehoshua]

Just to point out, Ignatios spoke of catholic church as it was in his days: one, universal church. You know, the one mentioned in Creed used by us orthodox and by roman catholics too?

"I believe [...] In one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;"

So, as long as the Roman catholic church and the eastern orthodox church are separated, it's a bit wrong to state that Catholic church = the western church.

Firstly I would like to correct your notion that the Catholic Church consists of solely the western Church (the Latin Church). It also consists of 22 eastern rites which correspond to each of the eastern and oriental orthodox chuches in addition to those which have no equivalent in those churches (Maronites for example). Thus to speak of the Catholic Church as solely the Latin Church is an incorrect view.

As to Ignatius, you are holding a specific interpretation an opinion on the matter (others have different opinions), on which you are partly right. But you must also understand that both our Churches agree that the Church is physical as well as spiritual in nature, and thus Ignatius is also referring to the physical Church of the time (ie the Catholic Church) in addition to the spiritual nature of the term. It is strange I think that all the early fathers whos sources I have put on these forums (ask a catholic/ask a protestant) use the term "Catholic Church" when talking about the Church, especialy those explicitly using it specifically a name for the Church such as St Augustine and yet they do not use the term "Orthodox Church" when they have a good reason to do so.

"And so, lastly, does the very name of "Catholic", which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house."

~St Augustine

or perhaps Cyril of Jerusalem who says his part to the same effect.


"If ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens "houses of the Lord"), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God" (Catechetical Lectures, XVIII, 26).

these two terms clearly highlight the physical as well as spiritual nature of the term Catholic Church, as a name for the institutional Church. You cannot simply say that is solely in a spiritual context and deny the physical Church on Earth. Thus considering this one wonders why the Church fathers never referred to the "Orthodox Church" but instead to the "Catholic Church" in this context prior to the great schism.

-

If you want to continue the discussion do it on the ask a catholic thread Marl. This thread is for discussion with protestants. [so if they have something to chime in they can do it here]. Somehow I think a debate between representatives of Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church doesn;t fit into the theme of this thread.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Is that a no?

I couldn't, it would be impossible.

El Mac, I'll answer yours later. That question would take more time to answer than I can spare while doing schoolwork

 

[Perfection]

I couldn't, it would be impossible.

That's sad. Does that mean that some of your deceased friends and family members will be permanently cut off from you?

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's sad. Does that mean that some of your deceased friends and family members will be permanently cut off from you?

Well, I don't have any close family that I have a close relationship with that aren't saved (At least, as far as I know)

But yeah, I suspect any Christian who had unsaved family that were close to him would be cut off from him. I don't know how he could still "Have no tears" with that being the case, but I believe God's Word when he says this will happen.

 

[Arakhor]

How do the 144,000 souls of the Rapture apply to the countless millions of 'saved' Americans? Isn't there a little inconsistency there?

 

[GhostWriter16]

How do the 144,000 souls of the Rapture apply to the countless millions of 'saved' Americans? Isn't there a little inconsistency there?

Well, I don't believe the 144,000 is related to the Rapture. In fact, I'm not sure if a "Rapture" in the Left Behind sense will really happen at all.

 

[Ajidica]

In fact, I'm not sure if a "Rapture" in the Left Behind sense will really happen at all.

And I thought you were a biblical literalist. Revelation makes quite clear how the Rapture will work.

 

[GhostWriter16]

And I thought you were a biblical literalist. Revelation makes quite clear how the Rapture will work.

No it really doesn't.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, as a mythological event, the end of the world is extremely well detailed. What is the purpose of the 144,000 souls and the brand of the Antichrist and so on, if it's not simply a fantastical vision?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, as a mythological event, the end of the world is extremely well detailed. What is the purpose of the 144,000 souls and the brand of the Antichrist and so on, if it's not simply a fantastical vision?

The Mark may be symbolic, but either way, the "Beast" (Antichrist) will demand total loyalty in thoughts and actions, whether this will come with a physical Mark (As Left Behind would have it) or not I have no idea.

The 144,000 is simply an image of completeness. In the Bible, 12 is used to show completeness, since there were 12 tribes. 12 times 12,000 is symbolic of all believers.

 

[Ajidica]

So, Revelation is now allegorical? Why shouldn't Genesis be treated the same way?

 

[GhostWriter16]

So, Revelation is now allegorical? Why shouldn't Genesis be treated the same way?

The style Revelation was written, or at least, that particular portion, implies allegory.
'
It can be tough to tell what is allegory, but "It was evening and it was morning, one day" sounds literal to me.

I'm not saying that it is essential to agree with me to be a Christian or anything, I'm just stating my own opinion.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Are bad things that happen as a result of accidents considered a sin?

Do bad things committed by mentally dysfunctional people qualify as sins?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Are bad things that happen as a result of accidents considered a sin?

What do you mean exactly?

I would think not but I need a specific example.

Do bad things committed by mentally dysfunctional people qualify as sins?

If they are too mentally impaired to understand that its sin, I don't believe it would be held against them, but its still technically a sin, at least depending on what it is. It depends on if the sin requires intent or not. For instance, murder requires intent, but lust is simply something you do, intentional or not.

That said, since EVERYONE sins this is largely irrelevant. A more relevant question would be if someone is too mentally ******** to understand the gospel, are they damned for not believing in it? (To which my answer is probably not.)