CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[ChristianPatriot]

Catholics study and preach from the OT. In fact, their OT has more books in it than yours does - the concept of purgatory is derived from one (can't recall which one).

Yeah that’s what you get when you add to God’s word

 

[dwh79]

I know you are just poking and good intentioned so I will poke back those extra books in OT were in there before the Protestants removed them from Gods word also Protestant was derived from protest as they were protesting the Roman Catholics teachings. I watched a good documentary the other day on Luther it was very interesting and funny how some of his concerns and things he developed are now part of the Roman Catholic Church. Oh and in case people didn’t know Catholic means universal. Mass today for All Saints day was good today as well. When I retire I hope to live close enough to a parish that has daily Mass so I can go each day. Nothing brings me calm and happiness like sitting in a beautiful old school Roman Catholic Church. The loss of morality in this country is very sad to me.

 

[JettaKnight]

I know you are just poking and good intentioned so I will poke back those extra books in OT were in there before the Protestants removed them from Gods word also Protestant was derived from protest as they were protesting the Roman Catholics teachings. I watched a good documentary the other day on Luther it was very interesting and funny how some of his concerns and things he developed are now part of the Roman Catholic Church. Oh and in case people didn’t know Catholic means universal. Mass today for All Saints day was good today as well. When I retire I hope to live close enough to a parish that has daily Mass so I can go each day. Nothing brings me calm and happiness like sitting in a beautiful old school Roman Catholic Church. The loss of morality in this country is very sad to me.

The Council of Trent was where the Deuterocanon was unequivocally established as part of the cannon (i.e. "the Bible"). This occurred after the Reformation. Before that, they were always partially accepted - like they had an asterisk after them. Even Jerome expressed doubts due to a lack of unanimous acceptance, especially among the Jews.

I'd argue that those books may be edifying, especially historical narrative, but should not be used as a basis for doctrine.


As for Luther, he never wanted to break away, he wanted to reform the Church - to address grave concerns, like selling indulgences. The fact that you could literally buy your way into heaven seems absurd, but that's what was happening in Luther's time. However, instead of addressing these differences, and the notion that salvation comes from the grace of Christ alone, the Church doubled down in the Council of Trent. When he wanted to talk and discuss the issues of the day, the Church wanted him to shut up and simply say, "I recant" - his conscience wouldn't allow him to be quiet and ignore flagrant conflicts with scripture that troubled his soul.

And, catholic means universal, when you capitalize the word, Catholic, it means something else entirely.

 

[T.Lex]

Carryover from the Manhattan attack thread: How does the Old Testament apply to us today? Do Catholics use the Old Testament? No snark in that question by the way, I honestly don’t know. I assume they do.

Without the OT portion of scripture, it's really, really hard to understand the true nature of God and the importance of Salvation.

Catholics study and preach from the OT. In fact, their OT has more books in it than yours does - the concept of purgatory is derived from one (can't recall which one).


EDIT: Just peeked at the Manhattan thread... I don't know where the heck Route 45 gets the idea that the OT, or the Commandments are null and void.


Oh, I will say that Acts 10:13 is my life verse.

Yeah, they are the Word of God. Generally at Mass, the first reading is from the OT, the second from the NT, and the Gospel from... the Gospels.

[The rest of this is my own "down to earth" explanation, unlikely to be dogmatically accurate.]
The OT is absolutely applicable in every way... except where it isn't. Before Jesus, the OT was what the world knew about God. Jesus and his sacrifice re-defined parts and established the new covenant.

The gospel this past weekend was where Jesus was confronted with the question of which commandment is the most important. Love God completely. Quickly followed by the "second" - love your neighbor - which is the root of the others. That didn't render the other 9 commandments, let alone the entirety of the OT, irrelevant. It simply taught them in a new way.

Again, that's my simplified version.

 

[JettaKnight]

Pastor Carl Lentz: Pornography, perceived racism, that's evil, but abortion? Well, God is judge, not us.



Hillsong Pastor Carl Lentz Discusses Harvey Weinstein, Pornography, and Ministering to Justin Bieber | CBN News

Pastor Refuses To Condemn Abortion | The Daily Caller

 

[T.Lex]

Pablum. Like the dude's primary congregant's music.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Pablum. Like the dude's primary congregant's music.

Had to google that. Spot on analogy.

Hillsong has had some good music and some not so good music IMO.

 

[JettaKnight]

A few laughs at Hillsong's expense.



Hillsong United Renegotiates Contract, Will Now Split Glory With God Fifty-Fifty
Exciting New Hillsong Album Ruins Over 30 Hymns
Man Frustrated At 'Hillsong NYC' Dance Club After Being Unable To Locate Bartender


And modern worship music in general: The Bee Explains: Hymns Vs. Modern Worship

 

[ChristianPatriot]

A few laughs at Hillsong's expense.



Hillsong United Renegotiates Contract, Will Now Split Glory With God Fifty-Fifty
Exciting New Hillsong Album Ruins Over 30 Hymns
Man Frustrated At 'Hillsong NYC' Dance Club After Being Unable To Locate Bartender


And modern worship music in general: The Bee Explains: Hymns Vs. Modern Worship

Those were fantastic

 

[foszoe]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-reaffirms-conscience-heresy-debate-divides-church-160315741.html

 

[T.Lex]

So Sunday's gospel was a passage that I've never really connected with. It is the parable of the 3 servants who received a bunch of money from their master, and what they did with it.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 25:14-30&version=NRSVCE

It follows the parable of the 10 bridesmaids, which seems pretty straightforward: be ready for anything.

But with the 3 servants, each one was given a significant amount of money, based on their abilities. Presumably, the more effective servant was given 5 units (each unit was comparable to several years worth of a laborer's wage - so this was a huge amount of money), and he "traded" for another 5 and was rewarded. A somewhat less effective servant was given 2 units, who "traded" for an additional 2, and was also rewarded. The third servant buried his, so as to keep only that amount, but not risk it. This was risk aversion to an extreme.

When the master returned, he was very angry at the third servant and threw him out.

Now, at the end, we learn something more about the master. He harvests crops that he does not plant, which is a problem. If these crops were planted by others, that's basically thievery. But anyway, the master goes so far as to tell the servant that, at the least, he should've given the money to the bankers and gotten interest. And that's kinda strange because usury was definitely a sin to Jews of that time. So, it is odd that it would be encouraged to participate in it, even if it was on the "interest bearing" side of the equation.

Anyway, only by abstracting it does it make sense to me. It is a variation of "hiding your light under a bushel basket." We are all given talents and abilities. We should put them to use for God. Safeguarding them for ourselves does not benefit Him or our greater community. That even extends to financial talents. If we can use our abilities to achieve financial success, then our greater religious community benefits with the greater tithing and related generosity.

The part about harvesting what the master does not sow is interesting to me, because in the more abstract context, it suggests that God does reap good works in areas that he does not obviously sow.

Anyway, I'm curious if there are other perspectives on this parable. I feel like there is a deeper meaning to it that eludes me.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

- - - Updated - - -

So Sunday's gospel was a passage that I've never really connected with. It is the parable of the 3 servants who received a bunch of money from their master, and what they did with it.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 25:14-30&version=NRSVCE

It follows the parable of the 10 bridesmaids, which seems pretty straightforward: be ready for anything.

But with the 3 servants, each one was given a significant amount of money, based on their abilities. Presumably, the more effective servant was given 5 units (each unit was comparable to several years worth of a laborer's wage - so this was a huge amount of money), and he "traded" for another 5 and was rewarded. A somewhat less effective servant was given 2 units, who "traded" for an additional 2, and was also rewarded. The third servant buried his, so as to keep only that amount, but not risk it. This was risk aversion to an extreme.

When the master returned, he was very angry at the third servant and threw him out.

Now, at the end, we learn something more about the master. He harvests crops that he does not plant, which is a problem. If these crops were planted by others, that's basically thievery. But anyway, the master goes so far as to tell the servant that, at the least, he should've given the money to the bankers and gotten interest. And that's kinda strange because usury was definitely a sin to Jews of that time. So, it is odd that it would be encouraged to participate in it, even if it was on the "interest bearing" side of the equation.

Anyway, only by abstracting it does it make sense to me. It is a variation of "hiding your light under a bushel basket." We are all given talents and abilities. We should put them to use for God. Safeguarding them for ourselves does not benefit Him or our greater community. That even extends to financial talents. If we can use our abilities to achieve financial success, then our greater religious community benefits with the greater tithing and related generosity.

The part about harvesting what the master does not sow is interesting to me, because in the more abstract context, it suggests that God does reap good works in areas that he does not obviously sow.

Anyway, I'm curious if there are other perspectives on this parable. I feel like there is a deeper meaning to it that eludes me.

The harvest is not the works and the worldly profits or financial rewards they might garner but souls for our master.

We aer working to increase His harvest which is our true reward.

 

[T.Lex]

- - - Updated - - -


The harvest is not the works and the worldly profits or financial rewards they might garner but souls for our master.

We aer working to increase His harvest which is our true reward.

Thank you for that perspective.

My only area of departure is that I see that as too narrow.

We all receive some Godly gift. Not all of us can be farmers. In the parable, each servant received a different gift, yet was expected to maximize that gift. The 2er was rewarded the same as the 5er, because (presumably) he did the best with what he had.

What do you make of the part about the Master harvesting where He does not sow?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Thank you for that perspective.

My only area of departure is that I see that as too narrow.

We all receive some Godly gift. Not all of us can be farmers. In the parable, each servant received a different gift, yet was expected to maximize that gift. The 2er was rewarded the same as the 5er, because (presumably) he did the best with what he had.

What do you make of the part about the Master harvesting where He does not sow?

Sure, we all have different gifts. L'm an engineer, I solve problems and fix things. You're a lawyer...you do whatever it is that you do. We may not be called to me missionaries or evangelists or nuns helping the poor in calcutta...but the question we have to ask ourselves is what are we doing with those gifts to advance the kingdom of God?

I did a quick search because I wasnt sure about the part youre asking about either. One perspective that makes sense is the one servant who squandered his time and his gift was one that didnt trust God and did not believe...he spent his time and resources persuing his own objectives instead of doing what he was instructed (don't we all?). his pronouncements were a judgement against God/Jesus...he was seeing God's/Jesus' actions through a non-believer's eyes. The ones who made a profit trusted and believed...they took risks in pursuit of advancing the kingdom. Does that make sense? I'm trying to figure it out myself.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, that does, too.

Another thing that always interests me is the "politics" at play during liturgical issues. Jesus was able to address multiple audiences with his parables. After the resurrection, the believers had a very communal society. People gave up their earthly possessions for the greater benefit. (With some mis-steps along the way.)

At some point, people would need a biblical resource that allowed them to acquire personal wealth, and share it with the church. I think this passage serves that need, too.

The more I reflect and pray about this passage, though, the more I am drawn to the notion that God admits that He reaps what he does not sow. I think that leads back to the idea that God uses resources (people) that are disconnected from Him. Some He harvests in a good way, brings them to Him, but that isn't a requirement.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes, that does, too.

Another thing that always interests me is the "politics" at play during liturgical issues. Jesus was able to address multiple audiences with his parables. After the resurrection, the believers had a very communal society. People gave up their earthly possessions for the greater benefit. (With some mis-steps along the way.)

At some point, people would need a biblical resource that allowed them to acquire personal wealth, and share it with the church. I think this passage serves that need, too.

The more I reflect and pray about this passage, though, the more I am drawn to the notion that God admits that He reaps what he does not sow. I think that leads back to the idea that God uses resources (people) that are disconnected from Him. Some He harvests in a good way, brings them to Him, but that isn't a requirement.

God will not force us to love Him nor will He force us to be with Him for eternity. But He can use us for His plans whether we even acknowledge him or not. I'm not sur about that reaping and sowing aspect...I'm not a believer in predestination

 

[lovemachine]

GOD does find ways to make you realize he’s there, and loves you. I know this for a fact!

 

[T.Lex]

God will not force us to love Him nor will He force us to be with Him for eternity. But He can use us for His plans whether we even acknowledge him or not. I'm not sur about that reaping and sowing aspect...I'm not a believer in predestination

Ha! Me either.

But, I don't think the reap/sow part is predestination. If anything, it suggest that there is no predestination, really, but that He knows even those disconnected from Him. He can present them with opportunities to repent and change, while the result of their sinfulness can create corresponding choices among the faithful.

I feel like I'm not articulating this very well. So, clearly, I have more reflecting to do on it.

GOD does find ways to make you realize he’s there, and loves you. I know this for a fact!

Indeed.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ha! Me either.

But, I don't think the reap/sow part is predestination. If anything, it suggest that there is no predestination, really, but that He knows even those disconnected from Him. He can present them with opportunities to repent and change, while the result of their sinfulness can create corresponding choices among the faithful.

I feel like I'm not articulating this very well. So, clearly, I have more reflecting to do on it.



Indeed.

I think the reap/sow thing was the accusation leveled by the nonbeliever in that parable. I think that was a moral charge he used to defend his actions contrary to his masters command. Much like when atheists claim God is a genocidal monster for His condemnation of the Caaninites for example...they are portraying God relative to their little view of morality so they can deny Him.

 

[T.Lex]

I think the reap/sow thing was the accusation leveled by the nonbeliever in that parable. I think that was a moral charge he used to defend his actions contrary to his masters command. Much like when atheists claim God is a genocidal monster for His condemnation of the Caaninites for example...they are portraying God relative to their little view of morality so they can deny Him.

At first, absolutely. But then, and this is the part that gets confusing, the master admits the accusation. Or at least, uses it against that servant. "You think I'm this and that, and yet you still disappoint me?"

In the context of usury (getting interest), it gets stranger. The master is saying, "Since I'm such a sinner, why didn't you use a sinful mechanism to achieve what I wanted?" Clearly, the use of a question by the master could be a rhetorical device, but I'm still frustrated at not connecting to what the intent of that passage is.

The only way it kinda makes sense to me (right now) is that even the sinful behaviors of those disconnected from Him can still serve His purposes. Temptation is the corollary to free will. Without temptation, free will is meaningless - if there were only good choices, free will doesn't matter.

I think of someone with a beautiful singing voice. Even if a sinner, and singing about sinful things, the transcendent beauty of the voice can still make people aware of the beauty of God's gifts. That person has been given a gift. They aren't serving God's will with it, but it can still serve God's purpose.