Jump to content

Biggest Lie You've Been Told


Perspektiv

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

You separated works from faith in reference to Christianity. That's a misunderstanding at best and a perversion of Christianity at worse. 

And see there lies the problem, that's your understanding. Not only are there thousands of different denominations of Christianity , but the person on the pew next to you has their own interpretation, to the point you accuse each other of perversion , heresy and not being true Christians. No all loving, all knowing, all powerful God, would let those who have accepted Jesus as their lord and saviour fight and kill over semantics.

 

13 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

No it just is. Someone or something had to exist outside what we know in order to create what is. Nothing creates itself except that which had to exist the create what is.

You may be right, but claiming it only applies to your God is the definition of special pleading. 

Just trying to explain it to you, you accused me of committing a logical fallacy without explaining how, then I literally made you commit one to illustrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Right, you can't do a Bible study with me. 

I think you'd be surprised.

I had the opportunity to grow up in foster care so I saw many different family units.

Two in particular I think are relevant. The first devoted Catholics (I was an alter server and had my feet washed), the second a fundamentalist Baptist (I taught Sunday school for the little ones) 

Two very different views of scripture, yet both the best possible versions of what a Cristian is supposed/called to be. It makes me laugh thinking they would have hated each other.

Anyway I've read and studied the Bible with many theologians and continue to do so. You seem to focus only on the teachings of the Catholic Church. 

A closed mind can never be open to the true word of God 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

No all loving, all knowing, all powerful God, would let those who have accepted Jesus as their lord and saviour fight and kill over semantics.

The fact is the Catholic church did kill over semantics or anyone who disagreed with them.  They were condemned as heretics through the centuries which are correctly called the Dark Ages.  There were groups of people and individuals who rejected Rome's version of Christianity and simply believed the Bible as the early Christians did.  Many of them believed all one had to do be saved was believe in Jesus Christ as the Bible clearly says.  Rome differed and used force to make everyone they could bow their knee to their church, sacraments, priests, etc.  This needs to be taught in schools.  Most people do not have any idea what happened the past 1,500 years. They paid the price as heretics and many were burned at the stake.  Fox's Book of Martyrs goes into all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

And see there lies the problem, that's your understanding. Not only are there thousands of different denominations of Christianity , but the person on the pew next to you has their own interpretation, to the point you accuse each other of perversion , heresy and not being true Christians. No all loving, all knowing, all powerful God, would let those who have accepted Jesus as their lord and saviour fight and kill over semantics.

 

You may be right, but claiming it only applies to your God is the definition of special pleading. 

Just trying to explain it to you, you accused me of committing a logical fallacy without explaining how, then I literally made you commit one to illustrate.

No there is one interpretation. What others think do doesn't change that. People are free to makes choices. If they weren't youd complain God doesn't allow them to be free.

I am right. You may not agree it's God but someone or something bigger and outside all this had to exist prior since what is exists. 

You did. No the evidence exist that nothing creates itself yet here is it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I think you'd be surprised.

I had the opportunity to grow up in foster care so I saw many different family units.

Two in particular I think are relevant. The first devoted Catholics (I was an alter server and had my feet washed), the second a fundamentalist Baptist (I taught Sunday school for the little ones) 

Two very different views of scripture, yet both the best possible versions of what a Cristian is supposed/called to be. It makes me laugh thinking they would have hated each other.

Anyway I've read and studied the Bible with many theologians and continue to do so. You seem to focus only on the teachings of the Catholic Church. 

A closed mind can never be open to the true word of God 

My minds not closed it's alert to perversions of scripture and heresy. Show me where sola fide exists in scripture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You asked me and I answered and told you what the Bible says.  Then you complain and say I am spouting my rhetoric.  Whatever I say, you claim I am not answering in good faith.

Apologies if you think I'm being purposely obtrusive, but I don't think you care about truth. I believe you've made up your mind based on the few sources that agree with what you already believed, and honestly question your cognitive capabilities. Either way I'm not interested in continuing discourse with you.

Take care 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The fact is the Catholic church did kill over semantics or anyone who disagreed with them.  They were condemned as heretics through the centuries which are correctly called the Dark Ages.  There were groups of people and individuals who rejected Rome's version of Christianity and simply believed the Bible as the early Christians did.  Many of them believed all one had to do be saved was believe in Jesus Christ as the Bible clearly says.  Rome differed and used force to make everyone they could bow their knee to their church, sacraments, priests, etc.  This needs to be taught in schools.  Most people do not have any idea what happened the past 1,500 years. They paid the price as heretics and many were burned at the stake.  Fox's Book of Martyrs goes into all that.

Look a sola scriputa Christian appealing to non biblical sources 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Anyway I've read and studied the Bible with many theologians and continue to do so. You seem to focus only on the teachings of the Catholic Church. 

You are correct.  He tragically thinks the Catholic church has all the truth and only it can interpret the Bible.

It is true there are thousands of Protestant or non-Catholic denominations but most of them agree on basic doctrines.  He tries to paint a picture of thousands of denomination being all different which is not factual.  Many of them if not most differ on minor matters but agree on central teachings from the Bible.

Quote

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Are you presuming you know the mind of God?

No not in the least but I can read and I take Jesus at his word when he says,

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16

Yet I have Christians tell me baptism isnt necessary for salvation. 

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You are correct.  He tragically thinks the Catholic church has all the truth and only it can interpret the Bible.

It is true there are thousands of Protestant or non-Catholic denominations but most of them agree on basic doctrines.  He tries to paint a picture of thousands of denomination being all different which is not factual.  Many of them if not most differ on minor matters but agree on central teachings from the Bible.

 

No they don't if they did there wouldn't be that many. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Look a sola scriputa Christian appealing to non biblical sources 

That's hilarious.  You claim I appeal to non-biblical sources even when I don't say they are infallible, yet you believe the blasphemous doctrine of Papal infallibility when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

The Bible is clear it isn't necessary for salvation.  The thief on the cross was never baptized yet Jesus indicated he would be saved.

I've explained that to you but you don't listen. Jesus can do with his mercy as he wishes. He CLEARLY says believe and be baptized. You don't listen to Jesus so you surely won't listen to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

No not in the least but I can read and I take Jesus at his word when he says,

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16

Yet I have Christians tell me baptism isnt necessary for salvation. 

No they don't if they did there wouldn't be that many. 

John 14:6 I am the truth the way and the light, no comes to the father except through me. 

We could go back and forth for days, I'm not interested. I think it's all a plagiarized fairy tale. 

My point was if you affirm your interpretation is the only interpretation you are explicitly claiming to have the truth of what God ment therefore you're saying you know the mind of God 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

That's hilarious.  You claim I appeal to non-biblical sources even when I don't say they are infallible, yet you believe the blasphemous doctrine of Papal infallibility when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

You do appeal to non biblical sources. 

The primacy of Peter is well established. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SkyHigh said:

John 14:6 I am the truth the way and the light, no comes to the father except through me. 

We could go back and forth for days, I'm not interested. I think it's all a plagiarized fairy tale. 

My point was if you affirm your interpretation is the only interpretation you are explicitly claiming to have the truth of what God ment therefore you're saying you know the mind of God 

If you thinks it's a plagiarized fairy tale then go away.

The fact is Jesus' words are clear believe and be baptized and you will be saved. Period. You have to ignore him to say baptism isnt necessary for baptism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Yakuda said:

You do appeal to non biblical sources. 

I study what learned people have to say about a lot of biblical topics.  Nothing wrong with that.  I never said they were infallible.  

"Proverbs 15:22 says, “Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counselors they are established” (KJV). Proverbs 11:14 and 24:6 also mention the value of a “multitude of counselors” or having “many advisers.” The general principle is that there is wisdom in seeking a wide range of advice from others instead of relying solely on one’s own knowledge or intuition. Considering other points of view and drawing on the experience of others is good."

Why is a multitude of counselors valuable (Proverbs 15:22)? | GotQuestions.org

You on the other hand only believe what the RCC told you.

5 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

You do appeal to non biblical sources. 

The primacy of Peter is well established. 

No it isn't.  That is what the RCC and catechism claim, but not the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I study what learned people have to say about a lot of biblical topics.  Nothing wrong with that.  I never said they were infallible.  

"Proverbs 15:22 says, “Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counselors they are established” (KJV). Proverbs 11:14 and 24:6 also mention the value of a “multitude of counselors” or having “many advisers.” The general principle is that there is wisdom in seeking a wide range of advice from others instead of relying solely on one’s own knowledge or intuition. Considering other points of view and drawing on the experience of others is good."

Why is a multitude of counselors valuable (Proverbs 15:22)? | GotQuestions.org

You on the other hand only believe what the RCC told you.

No it isn't.  That is what the RCC and catechism claim, but not the Bible.

The Bible sure does. You ignore it. Not my problem 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

If you thinks it's a plagiarized fairy tale then go away.

You're not living up to 1st Peter 3:15 are you now?

But like the saying goes, for most religious zealots "there's no worse hate than Cristian love"

Though the fact you think Christianity is a works based religion, just makes the irony and cognitive dissonance even funnier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Yakuda said:

The primacy of Peter is well established. 

Established by who or what?  Not the Bible.   I already gave you ample proof Peter was never a Pope and a number of verses prove the church was not founded on Peter.

Loraine Boettner gives a very in depth explanation of the Biblical teaching concerning Peter and demonstrates clearly Peter was not the "Rock" that the church was to be built on.  The whole Papal system stands or falls on the correct understanding of Peter's position.  It is important to understand this and therefore vitally important to consider what scholars like Loraine Boettner say about the verses related to it.

quote

2 The “Rock”

“And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18, Confraternity Version).

Romanists quote this verse with relish, and add their own interpretation to establish their claim for papal authority. But in the Greek the word Peter is Petros, a person, masculine, while the word “rock,” petra, is feminine and refers not to a person but to the declaration of Christ’s deity that Peter had just uttered—“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Using Peter’s name and making, as it were, a play upon words, Jesus said to Peter, “You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.” The truth that Peter had just confessed was the foundation upon which Christ would build His church. He meant that Peter had seen the basic, essential truth concerning His person, the essential truth upon which the church would be founded, and that nothing would be able to overthrow that truth, not even all the forces of evil that might be arrayed against it. Peter was the first among the disciples to see our Lord as the Christ of God. Christ commended him for that spiritual insight, and said that His church would be founded upon that fact. And that, of course, was a far different thing from founding the church on Peter.

Had Christ intended to say that the Church would be founded on Peter, it would have been ridiculous for Him to have shifted to the feminine form of the word in the middle of the statement, saying, if we may translate literally and somewhat whimsically, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Mr. Rock, and upon this, the Miss Rock, I will build my church.” Clearly it was upon the truth that Peter had expressed, the deity of Christ, and not upon weak, vacillating Peter, that the church would be founded. The Greek “petros” is commonly used of a small, movable stone, a mere pebble, as it were. But “petra” means an immovable foundation, in this instance, the basic truth that Peter had just confessed, the deity of Christ. And in fact, that is the point of conflict in the churches today between evangelicals on the one hand, and modernists or liberals on the other—whether the church is founded on a truly divine Christ as revealed in a fully trustworthy Bible, or whether it is essentially a social service and moral welfare organization which recognizes Christ as an example, an outstandingly great and good man, but denies or ignores His deity.

The Bible tells us plainly, not that the church is built upon Peter, but that it is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief comer stone” (Ephesians 2:20). And again, “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Without that foundation the true Christian church could not exist.

If Matthew 16:18 had been intended to teach that the church is founded on Peter, it would have read something like this: “Thou art Peter, and upon you I will build my church”; or, “Thou art Peter, and upon you the rock I will build my church.” But that is not what Christ said. He made two complete, distinct statements. He said, “Thou art Peter,” and, “Upon this rock (change of gender, indicating change of subject) I will build my church.”

The gates of hell were not to prevail against the church. But the gates of hell did prevail against Peter shortly afterward, as recorded in this same chapter, when he attempted to deny that Christ would be crucified, and almost immediately afterward, in the presence of the other disciples, received the stinging rebuke, “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art a stumbling block unto me, for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men” (v. 23)—surely strong words to use against one who had just been appointed pope!    unquote   For the whole section on this subject, go to:

Roman Catholicism : Loraine Boettner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

You of course claim that nobody should listen to what anyone else says about a biblical doctrine.  But the Bible refutes that claim too.  I gave you an article with lots of verses that prove that wisdom is often in a number of counsellors.  So your claim that nobody else's understanding or interpretation can be considered is false.  

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2024 at 11:18 PM, SkyHigh said:

You're not living up to 1st Peter 3:15 are you now?

But like the saying goes, for most religious zealots "there's no worse hate than Cristian love"

Though the fact you think Christianity is a works based religion, just makes the irony and cognitive dissonance even funnier.

Oh yes here we go with the same old drivel.  

It is a works based religion. Sola fide is unbiblical unless you can show otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2024 at 1:20 AM, blackbird said:

Established by who or what?  Not the Bible.   I already gave you ample proof Peter was never a Pope and a number of verses prove the church was not founded on Peter.

Loraine Boettner gives a very in depth explanation of the Biblical teaching concerning Peter and demonstrates clearly Peter was not the "Rock" that the church was to be built on.  The whole Papal system stands or falls on the correct understanding of Peter's position.  It is important to understand this and therefore vitally important to consider what scholars like Loraine Boettner say about the verses related to it.

quote

2 The “Rock”

“And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18, Confraternity Version).

Romanists quote this verse with relish, and add their own interpretation to establish their claim for papal authority. But in the Greek the word Peter is Petros, a person, masculine, while the word “rock,” petra, is feminine and refers not to a person but to the declaration of Christ’s deity that Peter had just uttered—“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Using Peter’s name and making, as it were, a play upon words, Jesus said to Peter, “You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.” The truth that Peter had just confessed was the foundation upon which Christ would build His church. He meant that Peter had seen the basic, essential truth concerning His person, the essential truth upon which the church would be founded, and that nothing would be able to overthrow that truth, not even all the forces of evil that might be arrayed against it. Peter was the first among the disciples to see our Lord as the Christ of God. Christ commended him for that spiritual insight, and said that His church would be founded upon that fact. And that, of course, was a far different thing from founding the church on Peter.

Had Christ intended to say that the Church would be founded on Peter, it would have been ridiculous for Him to have shifted to the feminine form of the word in the middle of the statement, saying, if we may translate literally and somewhat whimsically, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Mr. Rock, and upon this, the Miss Rock, I will build my church.” Clearly it was upon the truth that Peter had expressed, the deity of Christ, and not upon weak, vacillating Peter, that the church would be founded. The Greek “petros” is commonly used of a small, movable stone, a mere pebble, as it were. But “petra” means an immovable foundation, in this instance, the basic truth that Peter had just confessed, the deity of Christ. And in fact, that is the point of conflict in the churches today between evangelicals on the one hand, and modernists or liberals on the other—whether the church is founded on a truly divine Christ as revealed in a fully trustworthy Bible, or whether it is essentially a social service and moral welfare organization which recognizes Christ as an example, an outstandingly great and good man, but denies or ignores His deity.

The Bible tells us plainly, not that the church is built upon Peter, but that it is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief comer stone” (Ephesians 2:20). And again, “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Without that foundation the true Christian church could not exist.

If Matthew 16:18 had been intended to teach that the church is founded on Peter, it would have read something like this: “Thou art Peter, and upon you I will build my church”; or, “Thou art Peter, and upon you the rock I will build my church.” But that is not what Christ said. He made two complete, distinct statements. He said, “Thou art Peter,” and, “Upon this rock (change of gender, indicating change of subject) I will build my church.”

The gates of hell were not to prevail against the church. But the gates of hell did prevail against Peter shortly afterward, as recorded in this same chapter, when he attempted to deny that Christ would be crucified, and almost immediately afterward, in the presence of the other disciples, received the stinging rebuke, “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art a stumbling block unto me, for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men” (v. 23)—surely strong words to use against one who had just been appointed pope!    unquote   For the whole section on this subject, go to:

Roman Catholicism : Loraine Boettner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

You of course claim that nobody should listen to what anyone else says about a biblical doctrine.  But the Bible refutes that claim too.  I gave you an article with lots of verses that prove that wisdom is often in a number of counsellors.  So your claim that nobody else's understanding or interpretation can be considered is false.  

Again appealing to Lorraine butthead doesnt make you looks good. 

Matt 16:18 is clear except to a heretic. 

FYI you waste your time copying and pasting volumes of nonsense. I don't read it. You obviously cannot as you like but I've told you a thousand times volume doesn't equal accuracy. This is how I know you don't listen to Jesus. I've told you something a thousand times and you ignore it so Jesus saying something once you sure as hell won't listen to. He tells you three  times we eat my flesh and drink my blood and you refuse to listen. You have been deceived but you think you're enlightened. Thats REAL blindness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Oh yes here we go with the same old drivel.  

It is a works based religion. Sola fide is unbiblical unless you can show otherwise. 

Though the Bible "teaches" to love thy neighbor and to try and walk your path as Christ would, we will of course agree that one of Christianities core tenants in that we are all sinners, right?

The idea of a death bed confession is of course ludacris , you can't do terrible things then right before death say you love Jesus and, bang! You're saved. 

Now because we are all born to sin, therefore will sin , it isn't works based. 

The only way to be forgiven for sin (which the Bible teaches we all do) is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour. Period.

Works means each individual action in this life is directly related to your "next life" .

In Christianity you're "permitted" (I know that's not the best word, but you understand) to do "sinful" things as long as you ask forgiveness, and the only person you can ask forgiveness from is an itinerant, messianic, apocalyptic 1st century preacher, with little to no outside corroboration,and that my friend requires Faith.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Though the Bible "teaches" to love thy neighbor and to try and walk your path as Christ would, we will of course agree that one of Christianities core tenants in that we are all sinners, right?

The idea of a death bed confession is of course ludacris , you can't do terrible things then right before death say you love Jesus and, bang! You're saved. 

Now because we are all born to sin, therefore will sin , it isn't works based. 

The only way to be forgiven for sin (which the Bible teaches we all do) is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour. Period.

Works means each individual action in this life is directly related to your "next life" .

In Christianity you're "permitted" (I know that's not the best word, but you understand) to do "sinful" things as long as you ask forgiveness, and the only person you can ask forgiveness from is an itinerant, messianic, apocalyptic 1st century preacher, with little to no outside corroboration,and that my friend requires Faith.

 

Yes so?

Yes you can. The thief on the cross proves that. Again so? 

Works are not sufficient but they are necessary. 

Yes but that is not all. AGAIN works are not sufficient but are necessary. Conversely faith is not sufficient but it is necessary. The Bible shows as much. Faith alone is a heresy. 

Incorrect. What your describing there is the sin of presumption. I love when people think they can game the system on God. See the thief on the cross as I mentioned earlier is different then what you're describing here. The thief one then ross wasn't seeking forgiveness he.wss reminding the other thief that mocked Jesus that they were getting their just punishment while Jesus was not. The thief want presuming he was saved it was granted to him. To think you can sin and just ask forgiveness after is the sin of presumption. That won't help you. 

Edited by Yakuda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    John Wilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...