Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Berzerker, May 8, 2009.
As opposed to the Catholics?
"The list goes on and on."
The idea that there must be a literal interpretation of the bible is heresy, derived from Islam. It has never been a genuine Christian method of determining truth from scripture.
no he didn't
Then why didn't he instruct his followers to pray "in public" sincerely? Why did he tell them to pray in seclusion?
Heresy from the perspective of your own "heretical" religion? Certainly. Heresy from the perspective of a literal interpretation of the Bible? Not even close.
"Determining truth from scripture". Wow. What an oxymoron that is...
The bottom line is this: Anything the Catholics don't like or which they disagree is "heretical". Compare and contrast that to the fundamentaist Muslim view of infidels.
I find it rather odd all the catholic eyes and opinion upon protestants while obviously ignoring the plank in their own proverbial eye.
Or has the millions upon millions paid out because of child molestation lawsuits and the huge decrease of the Catholic church itself gone largely unnoticed? Or are you able to blame all that on protestants too?
They aren't biblical literalists. Can't really complain if they don't follow the Bible literally.
what do the child molestation charges have to do with the protestant v. catholic argument?
Uhm...yes he did.
Matthew 19:13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.
I assure you this wasnt done alone behind a door.
So that they would pray ernestly, and not be like hypocrites. You see while Jesus often did pray alone, he didnt always do this, and neither did his diciples - those that knew him best.
i believe he sees it as a personal interpretation. what exactly has obama done wrong by praying in privacy? do people not believe he's earnest until he proves it?
Ah, but we are discussing "heresy" here. If you diverge from a literal interpretation of the Bible can you possibly be more 'heretic' than that, unless you subscribe to the view that the word means "anything which Catholics don't like or happen to disagree"?
What plank? Were still sore over what happened during the Protestant Reformation (and the English Reformation). Darn Martin Luther is causing trouble again, nailin' his 95 thesis on a door again .
It's not just within the Catholic Church itself, Protestant Churches also see child molestation as well. Though not deemed important due because the Catholic Church is a large entity where as child molestation within Protestant churches are usually concentrated to just one church. Also, FYI, child molestation is not just concentrated in Christianity, it also happens in Judaism, Islam, and any other religion.
Matthew 7:2-4 (New King James Version)
2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brothers eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, Let me remove the speck from your eye; and look, a plank is in your own eye?
Again, biblical literalism has never been a tradition among the christian churches. It's been refuted since Augustine. Heresy isn't merely disagreeing with a particular belief system, it's a deviation from the established religious truth.
Actually, there's been plenty of evangelical child molestation cases.
I seem to remember something about a filioque deviating from the established religious truth some time ago...
i know the quote, i was born christian and have read the bible. what i'm saying is what does the catholic molestation scandal have to do with catholic law? where does it condone it? if it doesnt, then why use it against catholicism? it's a non sequiter.
It's not and the Roman Catholic Church does not condone the acts of child molestation.
i um...was implying that.
How exactly do you define "a tradition among the christian churches" other than to mean "anything that disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church"?
"Religious truth". There you go with the oxymorons again.
Actually, they haven't come close to the RCC regarding the deliberate ignoring of such for centuries.
Condones it, no. Allows it to continue hidden, yes.
You're assuming that "literal interpretation of the bible' is for some reason the only logically consistent view. Now we need to get into different definitions of the word heretical. Defining heresy in a bubble is tricky of course, but here are the options.
1. Heresy is derivation from the strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. Biblical literalists are automatically heretics, as the Bible is self-contradictory. This is a useful definition for them, but is less useful for Catholics and more mainstream Prostetants, who don't accept the literal authority of the Bible
2. Heresy is deviation from the basic creeds of Christianity developed in the first three centuries or so, before the major modern divisions were formed. I think this is the most useful yardstick for Catholic and liberal Protestant heresy.
Separate names with a comma.