An atheist, a homosexual, and a vegan walk into a bar, and....

Then we have nothing more to discuss, I have already wasted too much time with you.

 

You might as well Mr. -Master of non-conversation ("I would love to speak but I wont" "Now I remember why I had you on ignore") - since you have no material response to my posts

Best to cover ears, eyes, nose, mouth and any other orifice that might let the bad news in.

 

That's your choice. But if you "having nothing more to discuss" just because someone doesn't bend a knee to your claims of authority, you are probably wasting your time by being on this forum at all.

 

BZZZT Wrong!

Christian self righteous smugness is quite unique and distinct.

 

Beware of the vultures that haunt this forum looking for fresh meat...

 

Er. Is that all?

 

We have nothing more to discuss because you are not interested in discussion, you are interested in arguing, and while I am at it, I should probably ignore all of the atheists, since that is why they come here.

But don't think you are going to tell me what and where I am going to post.

 

Now, this is the best joke of the thread.

 

I have done no such thing. I have given my opinion, not commands.

 

Great, my opinion is that your opinion isn't worth the paper it's written on unless and until you can provide some facts.

 

And the facts are that we have a jokes sub forum for jokes.

 

I'll tell you what, I am going to give you a chance to change my mind. How about if you discuss the "faith vs. works controversy, comparing and contrasting each belief as it pertains to the Gospel as you understand it, and why both views cannot be correct.

Many Protestants believe that the Real Presence of Christ is in the Eucharist. How is this different from transubstantiation, and why are the two incompatible?

Alcohol - all Christians believe that drunkenness is sinful. How does abstaining from alcohol if you are weak violate scripture or canon law?

Please provide examples of where the Bible does not mean exactly what it says to the audience it was written for. Not to atheists, not to laymen, not to 21st century pagans, but to the original audience. Please use Greek and Hebrew to make your case.

I don't even know what #5 means. Give a real life example, not a made up example.

 

*crickets*

 

I would like to hear that last statement from the other guys mouth, kindly direct me to them. It sounds to me like you are the one claiming the most authority.

 

Well, since you are eager for a response, even though you have waiting just as long in the past to respond to posts yourself, here are some facts-based issues with your responses.

Sure, there are faith/works resolutions that are compatible . . . however, that doesn't mean all are compatible. As a matter of fact, there are many Christians who believe that good people, because of their good works, can achieve salvation without having faith in the Christian god. And, of course, there are many Christians who teach that faith is an absolute requirement and that even those who have never heard of Jesus are condemned to hell. Still others, like the Biblical Universalists, appeal to the original Greek and Hebrew of the Bible to defend their position that there is no eternal torture, and that eventually all will be saved.

This was a little bit of a dodge. You are substituting in the many Protestants and ignoring the rest. Many Baptists and Evangelical Christians deny both transubstantiation in particular, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in general. The Baptist and Evangelical churches I attended all of the way through high school and college taught that this was a blasphemous doctrine. In their view, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist would entail Jesus's sacrifice being repeated in every sacrament, thus challenging their own doctrine that his single sacrifice was sufficient.

And, again, this is a similar dodge. You pick one way in which the two notions could be compatible and try to draw all of the focus on that. The fact is that there are Christians who teach that all consumption of alcohol is sinful, whether you are drunk or not.

The issue is not whether or not you can defend your interpretation of the Bible. The issue is that Christians disagree about the inerrancy of the Bible. Some (maybe you) believe that the Bible is 100% correct. Others say that it was written by fallible men and that, though the spiritual kernel is true, many of the details are errors. For example, many churches point to the Bible in order to call homosexuality a sin, with some even still calling for the death penalty for homosexuals. Others see these verses as errors made by prescientific men who were inserting their own biases into the scriptures, to the point that some United Church of Christ, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Quaker, etc. churches officiate same-sex marriages.

How can a Catholic priest not have encountered issues of intermarriage before? #5 means that Christians disagree about whether or not is acceptable for Christians to marry non-Christians or for people within their denomination to marry those outside of it. Seriously, this can't be a surprise to any Catholic priest.

A real life example: one of my best friends growing up was kicked out of our Southern Baptist church for marrying a Wiccan. The leadership decided that, because he had chosen to become "unequally yoked," he had violated the scripture, had chosen to lead a life of sin and (because SBs teach the absolute security of salvation--once saved always saved) that he had never really truly been a saved member of the church. The Episcopalian church he went to afterward didn't care. The priest (a woman, by the way, so there's another big issue for you) was a big fan of Alan Watts's vision for a Christianity that was rooted in a spiritual foundation that was accessible to people of other religions as well.

And then, of course, there are the other factual differences I listed earlier. We can add to that the serious issue of how to treat women, whether they are to be subordinate to men (as my childhood church taught), or whether they can even become spiritual leaders. One of my other friends became a minister in the Salvation Army. She was quite adept at giving detailed, Biblically (in the Greek) based arguments in favor of the ordination of women. Then, of course, there is the issue of the priesthood itself. For Catholics, the priesthood is an important component of apostolic succession, whereas many Protestants passionately argue against the entire institution.

 

Just drop by any Evangelical church. You'll find one. And I have claimed authority over nothing. I know it is difficult for you to accept that those of us outside of your church and theirs have no objective reason to accept your claims of authority over theirs or theirs over yours, but those are the simple facts. If I were to base my position on Christian authority purely on historical succession, I'd probably go with the Eastern Orthodox churches. On scripture (assuming inerrancy for the moment), I'd probably go for the Evangelicals. On similarity to the original church, maybe Charismatics. As it stands, if someone calls themselves a Christian, I'll call them a Christian and leave it up to their personal authority, while pretty much equally ignoring the claims to some sort of global authority to declare who is a Christian and who isn't.

I am an ordained leader within my own religion as well, and (at least according to the guy who ordained me) that succession of teaching can be traced to our religion's founder, but I don't claim the authority as to dictate who is a part of my religion and who isn't.

 

Wrong! Number one, we are ALL evangelical to some extent. Number two, I wanted YOU to tell me who is saying anything that is contrary to what I say, since you apparently know everything about us.

And if your ordination does not authorize you to speak for the faith, what good is it?

Finally, if all the lay people you meet have personal authority, what makes that a church, since you can't possibly have unity. In other words, the differences you see among Christians is a direct result of the attitude you possess, yet you complain about it to all of us.

As Ravi Zachariah once said, "Even in India we look both ways before crossing the street- it's either the bus or me, not both of us.

 

The modern Evangelical movement (hence the capital "E") is a Protestant movement, and one that generally has negative things to say about Catholicism and its Christianness. Again, as a priest, there is is no way you haven't encountered this.

If you are honestly confused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

The fact that I am aware of the existence of anti-Catholic Evangelicals is basic literacy, not a claim to "know everything."

You may see division as a chief element of your ordination. I do not. My ordination authorized only that I understand the Dharma, that I have proven the ability to communicate it effectively and that I am trusted to do so. I got my ordination so that I could share teachings of compassion and mindfulness to prisoners, not to run around dictating who is and isn't Buddhist.

It isn't a single church, obviously. It is several churches. Each one can have internal unity, but even then there will be differences of opinion.

lol, it is direct result of objective fact. Christians have a wide variety of different beliefs. My attitude has nothing to do with whether or not Christians disagree about specific issues. These differences existed for centuries before I was born.

Complain? I haven't complained about the differences once. In fact, I said I saw it as a potential good. I specifically said that I didn't agree with the presupposition that it was bad.

Even if I agreed that there should be unity, there obviously isn't. And if I had to pick one unified group to represent the REAL (TM) Christianity, I have no objective reason to pick Catholicism over the others. I could very well pick Evangelicals. Or the Eastern Orthodox churches. Or the Salvation Army. Or Charismatics.

 

For someone who is not prepared to say what your own religion is and isn't, you don't seem to have a problem with saying (for example) what "evangelicals" believe.

With all due respect, I'll plow my field, and you plow yours.

 

I'm quite prepared to speak about my religion's Dharma. What I'm not interested in is nitpicking obsessively over complex doctrine for the sake of excommunicating anyone who has a different interpretation of the Dharma, while claiming to have some special authority to do so. You originally said you had no desire to divide people. You've gone to great lengths to show that is false.

Evangelicals, not evangelicals. And I'm not saying what they believe; I'm reporting what they say they believe. This is simple objective fact. There are Evangelicals who believe this way. I'm not sure why you are so offended by the objective facts of the diversity of opinion within Christianity.

You can read the wiki if you honestly have never heard of the Evangelical movement before, though I have no idea how a Catholic priest could be so unfamiliar with the results of the Protestant reformation.

But you are plowing plenty of other fields. If you are saying that you will no longer be commenting about atheism or telling other people that you have the authority to determine whether or not they are Christian, however, then maybe I'll buy the idea that you are sticking to your own field.

Also, you accused me of telling you what to post and what not to post, which was a false accusation. But now you are actually trying to tell me what to post and what not to. And you don't see the irony in that?

 

As always, you are misunderstanding and misconstruing my point, exaggerating and distorting it for your own agenda, whatever that is. I didn't know Buddhists were such unpleasant people, but you sound as dishonest as these atheists.

Furthermore, I will not read Wikipedia articles as being authoritative, in a seminary class if you reference Wikipedia in a paper you will lose a letter grade.

This ain't my first rodeo, I have been on both sides of the Catholic/Protestant thing and I don't need someone who is not of our faith teaching me my business. This is the 21st century, it's about time some of you got over the 1600's.

- - - Updated - - -

As always, you are misunderstanding and misconstruing my point, exaggerating and distorting it for your own agenda, whatever that is. I didn't know Buddhists were such unpleasant people, but you sound as dishonest as these atheists.

Furthermore, I will not read Wikipedia articles as being authoritative, in a seminary class if you reference Wikipedia in a paper you will lose a letter grade.

This ain't my first rodeo, I have been on both sides of the Catholic/Protestant thing and I don't need someone who is not of our faith teaching me my business. This is the 21st century, it's about time some of you got over the 1600's.

- - - Updated - - -

As always, you are misunderstanding and misconstruing my point, exaggerating and distorting it for your own agenda, whatever that is. I didn't know Buddhists were such unpleasant people, but you sound as dishonest as these atheists.

Furthermore, I will not read Wikipedia articles as being authoritative, in a seminary class if you reference Wikipedia in a paper you will lose a letter grade.

This ain't my first rodeo, I have been on both sides of the Catholic/Protestant thing and I don't need someone who is not of our faith teaching me my business. This is the 21st century, it's about time some of you got over the 1600's.

 

And, as always, you are avoiding any specifics when making your accusations.

This is a forum, not a seminary class. But if you are honestly going to pretend that you've never heard of the modern Evangelical movement, then no link is going to matter.

Once again, I'm talking about the modern Evangelical movement. Modern. Yes, it has its roots in the Protestant Reformation, but it is still modern. I'm not teaching you your business. I'm reporting the objective existence of people within the Christian faith who have dissenting opinions from yours. I'm sorry if facts offend, but there is a great diversity of opinion within Christianity. And if you are going to complain about non-Christians taking notice of Christians, then it is hypocritical for you to talk about atheists, as a non-atheist.

 

As a claimed minister, do you know what even constitutes a church?
Why the need for authority in the true meaning of church?

 

Notice how the detailed response to the earlier post is completely ignored.
There is nothing shown that could imply any knowledge on the subject of christianity by a claimed minister.

 

Nice strawman, but the biggest single group in Christianity does not claim that other groups of Christians aren't Christians. The Catholic church views all Christians to be fellow Christians, albeit with a slightly off set of views, but still fellow followers of Christ.