DescentBB

---voluntarily split from \"Question?\" thread---

Christianity seems to be a doctrinely intollerant religion, in the sense that hardliner Christians will refuse to participate in the religious ceremony of other religious groups.

A Christian would for example probabaly not participate in any form of voodoo divination or cursing/blessing ceremonys.

However, i would say that Christianity has absorbed a lot of Pagan aspects into itself - most notably with the symbolism used in it's holy days (Valentine's day, Easter, Christmas etc).

The way that most Christians - even hardliner Christians are ok with this Pagan influence indicated that there must be some kindof \"rules\" or \"lines drawn\" as to what is and isn't ok with regards to participation in other religions' ceremonys.

please, discuss.

roid wrote:there must be some kindof "rules" or "lines drawn" as to what is and isn't ok with regards to participation in other religions' ceremonys.

Two different issues here.
1: Participating in a worship service.
2: Using "symbols" that have pagan meanings.

Let's deal with 1 first. I have no problems worshiping at most protestant churches. They are worshiping the same God I am, we have a few differences of opinion about the details, but are mostly in agreement. Now I'm much less certain about participating in a Catholic Mass. Being a protestant, I have a major disagreement over the very nature of the Eucharist. Luckily this is a MUTUAL problem, and none of my Catholic friends would ASK me to participate in a Catholic Mass. So I don't have to make a decision on that. However, I absolutely couldn't offer adoration to a statue or icon. No if's ands or buts, for ME, that would be idolatry. So there are SEVERAL issues I would have to consider if I was participating in a Catholic worship service, but I have participated in Messianic Jewish worship services and found it quite comfortable.

Are you begining to see the lines here? I can participate in worship services if I feel that
A: They are worshiping the same God.
B: Nothing in that worship service requires that I violate God's rules as I understand them.

And, CRITICAL here, this is about PARTICIPATING. I HAVE sat through a Catholic mass, and would be happy to do so again. But I didn't partake of the bread and wine because I think that might have been wrong for me, and certainly would have been disrespectful to them. I might be convinced I'm wrong on that point in the future, it's a grey area. But from my reading of the Bible there is no grey about image worship. I realize that Catholics do not feel that bowing before a statue of Mary is idol worship, which is beside the point. *I DO*, so for me it WOULD be.

You'll note that I've actually concentrated on religious services that were Christian. That was on purpose to illustrate that the issues go way beyond Pagan/Christian. It is a Christians duty to study the Bible and determine what is right and wrong. They then must act upon that, and even within fellow Christian fellowships they may find worship practices that they do not feel they can participate in in good conscience.

Let's move on to number 2, the importance of symbols. I'm going to be repeating myself a bit here, so anyone who followed the "Christmas thread" can just skim the next few paragraphs, nothing new here.

I don't believe in magic. Symbols don't have any power in and of themselves. They are just shapes, and pictures... symbols. Their power lies in what images they evoke in your mind. And that means the power behind a symbol can change across time and space, and even from individual to individual.

The Pagan symbols involved in Christmas would have been a problem way back when, and I would have objected then, but now? A Christmas Tree doesn't have some magic power to invoke pagan meanings in the minds of people who know it only as a Christmas Tree.

The cross was also the hammer of Thor. And to take it to something more directly applicable, the cross was a symbol of, well, to quote the old hymn, "Shame and reproach" in Roman society. Only criminals hung on crosses. The early Christian church taking the cross as its symbol was the equivilant of taking a hangmans noose or an electric chair as a symbol of Good.
The symbol of the cross isn't something NEW that slipped in under the door during the dark ages. It's as old as the crucifixion, and the people who adopted it knew exactly what it meant. They took the old symbol and made it mean something new. We do that with symbols all the time.

I'm VERY uncomfortable with Halloween. There the symbols still have much of the original meanings, but a Christmas Tree just means presents. (and the comercialization of Christmas is a whole NUTHER problem)

I think Kilarin hit the nail on the head.

I participate in worship of Yahweh, and no other gods. I give my love and devotion to Yahweh, and no other gods.

But I have no problems with using symbols to worship Yahweh regardless of the meaning others ascribe to those symbols. Some people think rap is \"devil music\" but I have no problems with worshipping God by singing along to Christian rap. Some people view the cross as a sign of shame, but I have no problems using a cross to remind me of Jesus' death. Some people view the whole Christmas holiday as a fertility festival, but I have no problem using the very same symbols to remind me of things about God.

Now, in the Old Testament Law (the law that governed ancient Israel) the people are forbidden from doing anything that even remotely resembled the ceremonies of those around them, and in the previous thread, some people argued that command should still apply. I see the purpose of that command as keeping people off of the \"slippery slope\" where they start adopting symbols and eventually end up worshipping other gods, so from my perspective, as long as using a Christmas tree doesn't move me any closer to worshipping other gods, there's nothing wrong with it.

blipvert

\"If something comes between you and God, it is closer to God than you are\"

thanks guys that's very interesting. i wish you'd tell me more CUDA - as it's your professed doctinal intollerance that inspired me to get to the bottom of this.

Kilarin, you said you felt ok worshiping with Jews, do you think you'd also be comfortable worshiping alongside Muslims?

Another question: given the upsurge in the past few decades of the \"left-hand-path\" religions (ie: Paganism), it could be predicted that they will gain an increasingly stronger following. If this is so, they will likely demand that respect for their symbolism be returned to their religion. What this will likely mean is that Christianity may be encouraged via the culture to accept or remove their inhereted Pagan symbols, their religious Pagan symbolic power being re-claimed and restored by the Pagan religions.
If this is the case, i imagine Christianity will either readily acknowledge it's symbolic roots, or complyingly entirely purge itself of these symbols, yes? I would think that doctrinal intolerance calls for such an action, should this be the case.

I see your point Lothar about the slippery slope. In this day and age with the Bible stable and codified, i doubt that Christianity can move particularly far from it's Bible teachings. It all seems rather safe.

I was really piggybacking on Lothers thread, but the whole point of our faith is to strive to be Christ like (to live without sin, even tho its not possible for us) and to be closer in our walk to God. I take the \"thou shalt have no other Gods before me\" a little further that most. most people take it literally as in worshing another god, I look it as something that will distract you from God. Now this example might be a little on the extreme side but you'll get my point. Football, now I love football, But if in my love for football if I allowed myself to use it as an excuse to skip church constantly (I'm sure God is a Buc's fan ) just so I could stay home and watch it, then it has come between me and God, so now that same football has become closer to God than I am. thats just one example but it can be anything. but as an example of how we can use that same football (pagan) to glorify God is Superbowl sunday, our church uses it as an outreach to the community, we invite friends, many of which I'm sure are not Christian and we use it to build a relationship with them, and by building that relationship you show them that Christian people can have fun also, and that going to church may not be as intimidating as they think. so they might start asking what makes us different. this use of football could be construed in 1000 years as adopting a pagan ritual and making it Christian. the whole point is how does it glorify God? why cant God use these thing to reach non-christian's?

roid wrote:do you think you'd also be comfortable worshiping alongside Muslims?

probably. Do note that I said "Messianic" Jews. Messianic Jews believe that Jesus was the Messiah. I've never actually been to a regular Jewish synagogue. Assuming we were discussing orthodox Jews (because Reform Judiasim is, to my understanding, barely even theistic) I don't KNOW of anything that would cause difficulties. And the same holds with Islam. I've never BEEN to an islamic worship service. I would probably need to know more about it before I participated, but from my position of ignorance, I am not aware of anything that would be a stumbling block. We disagree quite a bit about the nature of God, but Christians, Jews, and Muslims all agree that they are worshiping the God of Abraham. I call my Aunt "Aunt", my cousins call her "Nana", and we have a lot of different opinions about my Aunt, but we are talking about the same woman.

It would all come down to the specifics. For instance, I don't THINK I would be comfortable praying towards mecca. Obviously a Christian can pray facing any direction they want, but to pray in an Islamic mosque, facing mecca, would imply I believed in something I don't. It would probably be wrong for me, it would definitly be decietful, and, in my opinion, it would be showing disrespect for their religion.

roid wrote:i imagine Christianity will either readily acknowledge it's symbolic roots, or complyingly entirely purge itself of these symbols, yes?

I doubt it. SO much paganisim has crept into the church from SO far back that Christians are HIGHLY unlikely to give ground. For example, early Christians worshiped on Saturday. Sunday worship didn't come in until much later and was based on, you guessed it, Paganism. (And an attempt to distance themselves from the Jews, of course)

Now, for catholics, this isn't an issue, because they hold as a doctrinal position that the Church has an authority equal to or greater than the Bible. But Protestants don't have that stance. Now there are several protestant christian churches out there that still keep the 7th day sabbath, but they are certainly the minority. Can you imagine the rest of the protestant Christian world switching from Sunday to Saturday? I don't THINK it's very likely at all. And I don't think they are likely to CARE much about what any Sun worshiping Pagans say about the sacredness of the day.

Jews claim Abraham as their own. Christians claim that he is THEIR spiritual father now, and they aren't ABOUT to back down on it no matter how much the Jews want to "reclaim" Abraham. So no, I don't think a revival of paganisim is likely to change the average Christian opinion about symbols that they claim for themselves.

It is a sad thing to admit, but the majority of Christians do NOT read the Bible, and hardly even know why they believe what they believe. If Dobson claims Harry Potter is satanic, then yes, oodles of Christians will jump on the bandwagon to disdane this new and evil thing. But if Dobson announced that Christmas Trees were pagan, large numbers of people would just turn off the show. It's easy to attack something new, it's VERY hard to get people to change their minds about something they already know and love.

Kilarin wrote: It is a sad thing to admit, but the majority of Christians do NOT read the Bible, and hardly even know why they believe what they believe.

all too true. unfortunatly

Kilarin wrote:Let's deal with 1 first. I have no problems worshiping at most protestant churches. They are worshiping the same God I am, we have a few differences of opinion about the details, but are mostly in agreement. Now I'm much less certain about participating in a Catholic Mass. Being a protestant, I have a major disagreement over the very nature of the Eucharist. Luckily this is a MUTUAL problem, and none of my Catholic friends would ASK me to participate in a Catholic Mass. So I don't have to make a decision on that. However, I absolutely couldn't offer adoration to a statue or icon. No if's ands or buts, for ME, that would be idolatry. So there are SEVERAL issues I would have to consider if I was participating in a Catholic worship service, but I have participated in Messianic Jewish worship services and found it quite comfortable.

I don't know where you've gone to Catholic Mass at, but I can't think of any part of the mass where there is adoration to a statue or icon. The church function that I can think of where there is any adoration is during a Benediction. That whole service is the adoration of the Eucharist, which Catholics believe to be the body of Christ after it is consecrated.

Kilarin wrote:And, CRITICAL here, this is about PARTICIPATING. I HAVE sat through a Catholic mass, and would be happy to do so again. But I didn't partake of the bread and wine because I think that might have been wrong for me, and certainly would have been disrespectful to them. I might be convinced I'm wrong on that point in the future, it's a grey area. But from my reading of the Bible there is no grey about image worship. I realize that Catholics do not feel that bowing before a statue of Mary is idol worship, which is beside the point. *I DO*, so for me it WOULD be.

You're right on about the Eucharist. However, I do want to point out that a statue of Mary is no different from a Cross. I have seen plenty of Protestants show reverence to a Cross for what it represents. The same applies to Catholics and Mary. However, as a Catholic, I just want to point out that Catholics do not place Mary on the level of God or Christ, but we honor her because of her role in Christ's life. She gave submitted to the will of God, and that is something that we believe that we should all strive for. The bowing in front of her statue is a show of respect. This is no different than what people did years ago as a sign of respect to their superiors (kings, officers, etc.).

Also, regarding the Catholic views in regard to the Church and the Bible is actually logical. Basically, the Church was the teacher of the faith. Christ told Peter, "On this rock I build my Church." He did not say on the Bible, or on the book that will come after me, or anything else. He placed the role of teacher on Peter. Also, at the time, many of the Jews were living strictly by the Torah which Christ disagreed with. People were living strictly by the book, so to speak, rather than by the spirit of the book. Also, you do not have a bunch of shifts in the religious realm due to new and better translations of the Bible becoming available.

Fast forward 1500 years and we have a man in Martin Luther that was very concerned about his salvation. Under Catholic teaching, he was not guaranteed salvation. When he was refused a hearing with the hierarchy of the Church, he split off. The two primary tenants of his were that each man could interpret the Bible in his own way, and pre-Destination. My question is, if each man can interpret the Bible in his own way, how can you have any organized religion? I think that is part of the reason why in the Protestant religion you have so many sects, where as in most other religions you have one or two main categories. Orthodox and Catholicism (which were actually quite close), Islam you have Sunni and Shi'a.

Now the problem that you have in the case of Catholicism and Islam, is that the religion can be corrupted as it is currently being done in Islam, and as the Catholic Church was during the time leading up to Martin Luther.

Sorry, just wanted to add a Catholic viewpoint to the conversation.

roid wrote:Christianity seems to be a doctrinely intollerant religion, in the sense that hardliner Christians will refuse to participate in the religious ceremony of other religious groups.

A Christian would for example probabaly not participate in any form of voodoo divination or cursing/blessing ceremonys.

However, i would say that Christianity has absorbed a lot of Pagan aspects into itself - most notably with the symbolism used in it's holy days (Valentine's day, Easter, Christmas etc).

please, discuss.

.
Does it really add anything to say that Christianity is "intolerant"? Since this carries a connotation of being bigoted. Christianity make certain claims regarding the nature of truth and the supernatural. So do all religions. In that sense, then, all religions are "intolerant". As in all human interaction, some adherents of a given set of ideas are more tolerant of considering the viewpoints of others. Some are less so.

Others might say that some pagan symbols were more transformed into symbols with Christian meaning, rather than simply absorbed into Christianity while retaining the substance of their original meaning.

Warhammer wrote:I don't know where you've gone to Catholic Mass at, but I can't think of any part of the mass where there is adoration to a statue or icon.

Yes, sorry, I was speaking of two different things and didn't make that clear. I was attempting to discuss ANY part of Catholic worship that I might be uncomfortable with participating in. I should have made it clear that I was not necessarily discussing things that would happen at the SAME service.

Warhammer wrote:The two primary tenants of his were that each man could interpret the Bible in his own way, and pre-Destination.

A quote on Luther and Predestination:

While accepting divine election, Luther refused to embrace the logical conclusions that led to an atonement limited to the elect and irresistible grace. He retained universal grace and man’s power to resist and reject the Gospel. For Luther, it was a mystery. Concerning investigating the doctrine he wrote: "we are not allowed to investigate, and even though you were to investigate much, yet you would never find out."

And I would object to saying that Martin Luther said each man could interpret the Bible in his own way. Rather Luther preached that each man was RESPONSIBLE for learning the Bible and interpreting scripture himself. We are NOT to leave that up to someone else and hope they get it right, we are to investigate and learn what is true with our own minds.

Warhammer wrote:The bowing in front of her statue is a show of respect. This is no different than what people did years ago as a sign of respect to their superiors (kings, officers, etc.).

Yeah, and I have problems with THAT as well.

But honestly, I was NOT intending to attack Catholics. I believe that the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants are large, and important. BUT, despite those differences, we worship the same God and are working towards the same goal. I disagree with the Catholics on many points, but I also think some of the best Christians who have ever lived on this world were Catholics. I was not trying to start a "Catholics are bad" thread, but attempting to explain to roid that issues of conscience involving worship are much more complex than they appear. I chose Catholicism because, despite our differences, I think we are part of the same Christian family and I wanted to point out that even WITHIN the family of Christianity we must make decisions based on our best knowledge of the truth and act as our conscience dictates.

Warhammer wrote:Sorry, just wanted to add a Catholic viewpoint to the conversation.

And thank you VERY much for doing so!

Nicely put, Warhammer. I was planning on saying something similar myself. As a Catholic, I'd have no problems whatsoever with someone of any faith, be they a member of another Christian denomination, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or even an atheist, attending Mass, so long as they acted in a respectful manner toward what I believe in. I wouldn't expect any of them to do anything more than stand in the back and watch, since they don't believe in exactly what it is I'm praying for, but the invitation is always there. As you said, the problem lies in the reception of the Eucharist by non-Catholics. The problem there is that Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine, and for someone to receive it without that belief would be somewhat of a sacrelige. I also agree with your comments about the use of symbols/icons. In my mind, the use of and respect shown toward a statue of the Virgin Mary, a set of rosary beads, a scapular, or a religous medal is no different than that shown by just about all Christians toward a crucifix. I consider all of them to be sacramentals, aids toward one's prayer, not objects of worship in and of themselves; that would be true idolatry. As far as the rest of your post goes, while I do absolutely agree with you, I don't think this thread is the best place for arguments about the Reformation.

roid, regarding your original question, I don't see the usage of the symbols that you're referring to as being in any way a condonement or approval of paganistic practices. It's true that these symbols have roots in the past that are linked to pagan rituals; no one denies that fact. However, when I look at something like a Christmas tree, I'm not thinking about something it may have been used for two millennia ago; I'm thinking about what it means to me and my views on Christmas. To me, not only is a Christmas tree a popular, secularized symbol of the holiday, it also represents something pertinent to my faith. The evergreen, a tree that never loses all of its leaves, even in the dead of winter, symbolizes life in the midst of death, a contrast that I think fits my definition of Christmas pretty well. I don't really care what its original use was; that's what it means to me. In turn, if what you propose is true, and paganism would somehow gain some sort of revival and use symbols like the evergreen tree in greater prominence, I wouldn't really mind it myself, and I'd guess that most other Christians would feel the same way. As Kilarin said, symbols that have been in use for hundreds of years and have so much associated with them would be all but impossible to remove.

Edit: Whoops, looks like Kilarin snuck in before me. Thanks for the additional information on Luther.

I've been trying to post a comment here for two days. It's quite long and keeps getting an SQL error. Is there a limit on the size a post can be?

Shoku wrote:I've been trying to post a comment here for two days. It's quite long and keeps getting an SQL error. Is there a limit on the size a post can be? :(

Not as far as I know.

If you can't get it to work, E-mail me the text of your post and I'll edit it in for you. If that doesn't work, we'll go from there...

roid wrote:you said you felt ok worshiping with Jews, do you think you'd also be comfortable worshiping alongside Muslims?

For me, it all comes down to whether we're worshipping the same God. If I go in to a Muslim service and they're bowing down to Allah, I'm confident in saying, no, they're not worshipping Yahweh. Their God bears some resemblance on the surface, but his character is entirely different.

I don't feel comfortable in Mormon or JW services, because I think the God their church (as an institution) preaches is different from mine. I don't mind praying or studying with friends who are Mormon or JW, but I won't worship in their church.

If I go in to a Jewish service, their God is the same God, just viewed through a different lens. His character is the same, they just may or may not believe Jesus was God. I'm OK with that.

And I'm OK with any one of those people coming in to a service at my church.

i imagine Christianity will either readily acknowledge it's symbolic roots, or complyingly entirely purge itself of these symbols, yes?

Nope. And the word "gay" will never be used to mean "happy" in a heterosexual context, either. And people will never stop talking about Santa Claus no matter how much Christians tell them the holiday is about Jesus. Once a word or symbol acquires new meaning, it doesn't just un-acquire it.

Lothar wrote: Nope. And the word "gay" will never be used to mean "happy" in a heterosexual context, either. And people will never stop talking about Santa Claus no matter how much Christians tell them the holiday is about Jesus. Once a word or symbol acquires new meaning, it doesn't just un-acquire it.

I agree. This then, is what Tradition does to society: it perpetuates beliefs, even if those beliefs are based on falsehood.

And here is my long post in two parts:
PART ONE

The Creator, Yahweh, the Almighty, is a God of truth. He does not compromise with error. His truth is recorded in his Word the Bible, and the future of that truth is assured: “The word spoken by the LORD endures forever.” (Deut. 32:4; John 17:17; 1Pet. 1:25)

In unquestionable terms the Bible testifies that God has been against interfaith from beginning to end. From the time true and false worship first appeared side by side, God has accepted the true and rejected the false. He did not sanction interfaith by looking with favor upon both Cain’s and Abel’s worship:

“And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto Jehovah. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Jehovah had respect unto Abel and to his offerring; but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And Jehovah said unhto Cain, \"Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto thee shall be its desire, but do thou rule over it.\" (Gen. 4:3-7, American Standard Version)

Abel’s animal sacrifice showed recognition of his need of a sin-atoning sacrifice; it prefigured Christ’s death as a ransom. (Heb. 9:22) Cain’s bloodless offering was empty formalism. Even after correction from God the hurt religious pride of Cain would not let him copy Abel’s acceptable way of worship by offering a suitable animal, which was close at hand for use. He murdered Abel instead. So with this account God shows us he has standards for acceptable worship.

God later demonstrated in a spectacular way that he still opposed the idea of more than one way to worship. The captive Israelites in Egypt wished to worship God, but could not freely do so in the midst of their Egyptian captors, who were steeped in false religion. (Ex. 8:25, 26) In the ten plagues that followed, God showed that he opposed the gods of the Egyptians and would tolerate no interfaith movement involving his people and false religions.

By each of the plagues the demon gods of Egypt were put to humiliation and disgraced before Almighty God whom Pharaoh defied: first, their river god the Nile, by the turning of it and all waters in Egypt into blood; then the frog-goddess Heqt; then Watchit the god of the gadfly; then by the deadly pest upon Egypt’s livestock the cow-goddess Hathor and her corresponding divinity Apis the bull; then by the plague of boils and blisters Imhotep the god of medicine; next by the plague of hail Reshpu and Qetesh the gods of storm and of battle; next by the plague of locusts the deities of providence responsible for Egypt’s fertility and harvests; next by the three-day plague of darkness Thoth the counselor of Osiris and god of the moon as well as systematizer of sun, moon and stars; also Amon-Ra the god of the sun; and by the tenth and last plague the god Ra, who occasionally appeared as a male sheep and to whom all the firstborn were sacred, being dedicated to him from birth.

After separating his people from the false faiths of Egypt, and disgracing the Egyptian cults in the process, God gave his law to his people in the wilderness. This law specifically forbade any interfaith movements. Brotherhood with the false worshipers in the Promised Land was not to be established per these words of instruction from God: “You must be careful never to make any compact with these natives of the land to which you are going, lest that allure you into danger; you must demolish their altars and break their obelisks and cut down their sacred poles (for you must never worship any other god: the Eternal whose [disposition] is jealous is a jealous God), lest you make a compact with the nations, deserting to their gods, sacrificing to their gods, agreeing to partake of their sacrificial meals, marrying your sons to their daughters, who will desert to their gods and make your sons desert also.” (Ex. 34:12-16, Moffat; Deut. 7:1-6, 16, 25, 26) Interfaith compacts with false worshipers were outlawed by God. Even such nonreligious associations as marriage were forbidden as being dangerous to the integrity of the true worshiper.

However, the Israelites did not heed this command against interfaith and intermarriage with the demon-worshiping heathen in Canaan, and as a result they were oppressed and enslaved and were no longer worshiping God acceptably. They compromised and made compacts with the native inhabitants of the Promised Land and failed to root out and utterly destroy demon religion; rather they came under bondage to it. Therefore God said: “I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.” (Judg. 2:3) Because of their unwise tolerance of false worship the Israelites were pierced with thorny demonism and snared by false gods. Even Israel’s wisest human king was unable to ignore with impunity God's counsel against entangling alliances with the heathen. The account of this king’s disobedience and the disastrous results is found at 1Kings 11:1-11, Moffat:

“Now King Solomon was a lover of women; he had seven hundred royal wives, and three hundred mistresses. He married many foreign women—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Phoenicians, and Hittites—belonging to nations against whom the Eternal had warned the men of Israel, ‘You must not mix with them, nor let them mix with you, for they will be sure to seduce you to follow their gods.’ Solomon clung to these women in love. When he grew old, he had no undivided mind for the Eternal his God, as his father David had; his wives seduced him to follow foreign gods. Solomon did what was evil in the eyes of the Eternal; he did not follow the Eternal faithfully, as his father David had done. For he put up shrines for Astartê the goddess of the Phoenicians, and for Milkom the detestable idol of the Ammonites, and for Kemôsh the detestable idol of Moab, on a hill to the east of Jerusalem. He did the same for all his foreign wives, burning incense and offering sacrifice to their gods. The Eternal was angry with Solomon for letting himself be seduced from the Eternal, the God of Israel, who had twice appeared to him and given him this order, that he was not to follow foreign gods; he did not obey what the Eternal had ordered, and so the Eternal said to Solomon, ‘Since this is your mind, since you have not obeyed my compact and the rules I laid down for you, I will tear the kingdom from you and give it to your servant.’”

Solomon really believed in interfaith, plunging into it on a big scale. This may have promoted good will with his foreign wives and brought a measure of religious peace into his household life, just as interfaith movements today may subdue religious differences in national life. But it brought no peace with God. Along with his catering to the demon gods of his foreign wives, he kept up a pretense of also serving Yahweh, but he flouted the divine law: “And thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy might.” (Deut. 6:5 American Standard Version) Solomon had a divided mind regarding the true God's worship; he split his attentions. The psalmist expressed God's view when he wrote: “I hate men who are half and half.” Prior to the fall of unfaithful Judah condemnation was pronounced against those who did “swear to Jehovah and swear by Malcam”. (Ps. 119:113, Moffat; Zeph. 1:5, American Standard Version) They were like many of the faiths in Christendom today that take the name of God and Christ on their lips but teach demon -inspired doctrines and practice pagan ceremonies. (Matt. 7:20-23) Such interfaith fence-straddlers are neither hot nor cold for God's worship, so to these indifferent compromisers Christ Jesus says: “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or else hot. So, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth.” Rev. 3:15, 16.

Long Post in two parts.
Part Two

Some professed Christians today say that Jesus himself was for interfaith, quoting in support Mark 9:38-40: “John said to him: ‘Teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.’ But Jesus said: ‘Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; for he that is not against us is for us.’” They contend that this shows the propriety of separate religious organizations, each doing good work in its way; yet since they all operate on the basis of Jesus’ name they can and should join in interfaith movements that work toward the accomplishment of certain mutual, broad aims, while allowing complete doctrinal independence for each organization.

In using this text to support the existence of separate church groups or faiths, they ignore the circumstances of those times. Not all believers in Jesus followed him along with the twelve apostles. Some who wanted to follow Jesus were told to go back home and bear witness to him there. (Mark 5:18-20) Hence it was not necessary for this man to bodily follow Jesus to be on his side. When Jesus sent out his twelve apostles to preach, his instructions did not include any directions to establish congregations of Christians, nor was this command given to the seventy sent out later. (Matt. 10:1-42; Luke 10:1-16) They were merely to give a witness from house to house and locate believers there. Jesus was not then establishing the congregational arrangement in opposition to the synagogues, but he allowed the synagogues to remain and his believers to attend the services there. He went there himself and preached about the Prophets and the Law, which Law was still in effect and which he did not oppose. (Matt. 5:17; Luke 4:15-21) So this young man who was preaching and casting out demons on the basis of Jesus’ name did not have to be in the immediate company of Jesus and the twelve apostles, and his being separated from them did not imply that he was of a separate congregation, for the Christian congregation had not been set up at that time.

After Pentecost when Jesus did build up his spiritual congregation on himself as the anointed King, then distinct congregations of Christians were established. Then if this young man wanted to be a real follower of Christ he could not keep himself apart from the company of Christians, but he must associate with some company of Christians and function with them in order to receive the outpouring of the holy spirit and the spiritual gifts through or in the presence of Jesus’ apostles. The time was past for such individual preaching and ousting of demons, and if the young man had tried that he would have been wrong. His use of Jesus’ name in exorcising demons would have been wrong, and the results would have been as disastrous as in the case of the sons of Sceva, Jews who used Jesus’ name without becoming Christians. Note that the record of their improper use of Jesus’ name shows that sincere converts abandoned such former practices and became a part of the established Christian congregational arrangement:

“Certain ones of the traveling Jews who practiced the casting out of demons also undertook to name the name of the Lord Jesus over those having the wicked spirits, saying: ‘I solemnly charge you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.’ Now there were seven sons of a certain Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, doing this. But in answer the wicked spirit said to them: ‘I know Jesus and I am acquainted with Paul; but who are you?’ With that the man in whom the wicked spirit was leaped upon them, got the mastery of the two of them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled naked and wounded out of that house. This became known to all, both the Jews and the Greeks that dwelt in Ephesus, and a fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus went on being magnified. And many of those who had become believers would come and confess and report their practices openly. Indeed, quite a number of those who practiced magical arts brought their books together and burned them up before everybody. And they calculated together the prices of them and found them worth fifty thousand pieces of silver. Thus in a mighty way the word of God kept growing and prevailing.”—Acts 19:13-20.

So the case of this young man cannot be used to justify the existence of numerous sects and cults operating in Jesus’ name. (Matt. 7:21; 25:40, 45)

Christ Jesus’ opposition to a mingling of different faiths is forcefully shown by an illustration he used on one occasion. Certain ones had stated, “The disciples of John fast frequently and offer supplications, and so do those of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink,” and to this Jesus replied: “No one cuts a patch from a new outer garment and sews it onto an old outer garment; but if he does, then both the new patch tears away and the patch from the new garment does not match the old. Moreover, no one puts new wine into old wineskins; but if he does, then the new wine will burst the wineskins, and it will be spilled out and the wineskins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins. No one that has drunk old wine wants new; for he says, ‘The old is nice.’”—Luke 5:33-39.

By this illustration Jesus pointed out that he was bringing in an entirely new system of things, and that it was not to be attached to the groups that followed John the Baptist or the Pharisees. The disciples of Jesus were not to attach themselves to such groups or conform to their customs or ceremonies. Jesus was not bringing in this new system of things to patch up or bolster up or prolong old worn-out systems of worship that were ready for the discard. The previous religious systems could not contain the new system of things, were not adequate for this new system, could not exist alongside the new system, but would be brought to their end by the new system of things. Even the Law of Moses was to be nailed to the cross as being fulfilled and canceled. Just as a new outer garment was not to be cut up and used to patch up hopelessly old garments, but was to remain intact and entirely new; just as new wine was not to be poured into dried-up old wineskins that had lost their elasticity and would burst, but was to have its own new wineskin, just so the new Christian organization must have an entirely new system of things, permanently separate from the old religious systems that had either failed or passed the period of their usefulness. Yet, the adherents of these old systems would cling to the old, saying they had become accustomed to the comfortable fit and mellow age of the old systems. To them the old was nice; they were satisfied with their religion, it had been in the family a long time, and they did not want to change to anything new.

Christ Jesus in unmistakable terms showed that he wanted no interfaith movement with the clergy of his day. Instead of joining with them he told his followers: “Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matt. 15:14) On another occasion Jesus said: “Be on the alert and watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Seeing that his disciples were confused and thinking of literal loaves with yeast in them, Jesus enlightened them as to the meaning of his pictorial language: “‘How is it you do not discern that I did not talk to you about loaves? But watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’ Then they grasped that he said to watch out, not for the yeast of the loaves, but for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Jesus also said: “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” The great danger that this yeast of false religion would be to the true Christian congregation is stated for us, as follows: “A little yeast ferments the whole lump.” (Matt. 16:6, 11, 12; Luke 12:1; 1Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9) So the true faith stays aloof from contaminating interfaith beliefs.

If Jesus favored silent toleration of false worship, of contaminating interfaith beliefs, as some religionists do today, why did he unleash such torrid denunciations at the scribes and Pharisees, calling them hypocrites, blind guides, fools, outwardly beautiful but inwardly filthy, serpents and viperous offspring doomed to destruction? (Matt. 23:1-33) If he considered brotherhood despite religous differences a religious duty, why did he tell religious leaders: “You are from your father the Devil”? (John 8:44) To acknowledge them as his brothers would be to acknowledge their father as his father. He would never link up with a brotherhood that would make the Devil his father!

Our conception of God does matter. He is approached only through Christ. (John 14:6) Even professed Christians that do not allow themselves to be disciplined by God into conformity with his Word “are really illegitimate children, and not sons”. (Heb. 12:4-11) The broad road of interfaith, on which “anything goes”, is the broad road to destruction.—Matt. 7:13, 14.

Centuries after Jesus’ day the Roman emperor Constantine launched an interfaith movement to fuse all religions, allowing the various sects and cults to retain their many conflicting beliefs, but agreeing on a few principal points, just as in interfaith movements today. Its purpose was to promote political solidarity and religious uniformity. Only true Christians resisted, knowing that the apostate Christians that merged with paganism and succumbed to the state-sponsored interfaith drive had violated God's Word: “Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said: ‘I shall reside among them and walk among them, and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.’ ‘“Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,” says the LORD, “and quit touching the unclean thing,’” ‘“and I will take you in.”’” Only then will the LORD God be our Father and we his sons, but not otherwise.—2Cor. 6:14-18.

Christ rejected interfaith. He did not join with false religious leaders just to gain physical unity, and thus have to give up some spiritual truths. Instead of joining interfaith movements, true Christians heed God’s command: “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.”—Matt. 15:14, Eph. 5:11.

The refusal to expose spiritual falsehood is the thing that is unchristian.

The touchstone for determining the genuineness of spiritual instruction is the principle laid down by Christ himself: “God is a spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” Christ’s apostles also show this to be true. Following are some of their statements as they appear in Catholic translations of the Bible: “We walk by faith and not by sight.” “If only we will fix our eyes on what is unseen, not on what we can see.” “If we are the children of God, we must not imagine that the divine nature can be represented in gold, or silver, or stone, carved by man’s art and thought.”—John 4:24, Knox; 2Cor. 5:7, Dy; 2Cor. 4:18; Acts 17:29, Knox.

Images and idols do not contribute to the spiritual growth of a Christian; instead they lead to spiritual malnutrition and death, as the Catholic translation of Psalm 113:13-16 by Monsignor Knox shows: “They have mouths, and yet are silent; eyes they have, and yet are sightless; ears they have, and want all hearing; noses, and yet no smell can reach them; hands unfeeling, feet unstirring; never a sound their throats may utter. Such be the end of all who make them, such the reward of all who trust them.”

Little wonder the apostle John warned Christians: “Dear children, guard yourselves from the idols.”—1John 5:21.

Well, I think this proves it -

Shoku and Lothar are alter egos of a split personality.
(as measured by the post length criterion)

Shoku wrote:Images and idols do not contribute to the spiritual growth of a Christian; instead they lead to spiritual malnutrition and death,

Oh, I don't know. I think that meditation of Christ on the cross is enough of a counter-example to show that images can contribute to the spiritual growth of a Christian.

dissent wrote:

roid wrote:Christianity seems to be a doctrinely intollerant religion, in the sense that hardliner Christians will refuse to participate in the religious ceremony of other religious groups.

A Christian would for example probabaly not participate in any form of voodoo divination or cursing/blessing ceremonys.

However, i would say that Christianity has absorbed a lot of Pagan aspects into itself - most notably with the symbolism used in it's holy days (Valentine's day, Easter, Christmas etc).

please, discuss.

.
Does it really add anything to say that Christianity is "intolerant"? Since this carries a connotation of being bigoted. Christianity make certain claims regarding the nature of truth and the supernatural. So do all religions. In that sense, then, all religions are "intolerant". As in all human interaction, some adherents of a given set of ideas are more tolerant of considering the viewpoints of others. Some are less so.

Others might say that some pagan symbols were more transformed into symbols with Christian meaning, rather than simply absorbed into Christianity while retaining the substance of their original meaning.

mention of "doctinal intollerance" was to bring the readily prepared theme in from the other thread - where the word "intollerance" was used liberally. Do you have a PC (politically corrent) expression to use in it's place?

the OP was to draw the ropes of the discussion:
absolute intollerance on one extreme side.... interfaith absorbant sponge on the other extreme.
i'm interested in the nature of why christianity is where it is and how it justifys it's extremism, or lack of extremism (as so many christians are different).

dissent wrote:Shoku and Lothar are alter egos of a split personality. (as measured by the post length criterion)

Complex topics can't always be summed up in a one paragraph "Sound Bite"

One clarification I'd like to make. I agree with Shoku in the general problems of the interfaith movement. Interfaith often attempts to smooth over all of the disagreements between the different branches of Christianity as if they were not important. They ARE important. Compromise on the pillars of the faith is NOT something we should be doing. But I do not believe that avoiding compromise precludes all possibility of cooperation or worship with Christians from other denominations. (And I don't think Shoku was necessarily implying that either)

A Southern Baptist and I have several IMPORTANT doctrinal differences. If either one of us tried to compromise those beliefs, not because we had been honestly convinced we were wrong, but just to encourage "interfaith" unity, we would be betraying our Lord and Master.

BUT, that does not mean I have to be enemies with every Southern Baptist I meet. In fact, despite our disagreements, IMPORTANT disagreements, the Baptists and I ARE on the same side. We both agree that the only possible salvation is by Grace alone through Jesus Christ. This IS the central core and most important theme of Christianity. And there is MUCH that we CAN cooperate on along this core that does not in ANY way compromise any of our other doctrines.

So absolutely, I oppose any kind of interfaith movement which involves smoothing out the important doctrinal differences between various faiths. I would ask a Southern Baptist to give up his belief in eternal hell fire because he is convinced I have proven it is wrong from the scripture, but if I had NOT convinced him, I would NEVER ask him to compromise his beliefs just to help us get along. Compromise is out. But I also have attended a Southern Baptist church a few times and participating fully in their worship service. Nothing there forced me to compromise any of my beliefs in any way. I've also been more than happy to participate in Baptist bible study groups on a few occasions. I haven't always been invited BACK mind you...

Kilarin wrote:Complex topics can't always be summed up in a one paragraph "Sound Bite"

Indeed!

roid wrote:mention of "doctinal intollerance" was to bring the readily prepared theme in from the other thread - where the word "intollerance" was used liberally. Do you have a PC (politically corrent) expression to use in it's place?

Nah. The OP is fine. I'm just hasslin' ya. And pointing out the application of the concept of intolerance to other religious affiliations.

btw - political correctness on the DBB? -

dissent wrote:Shoku and Lothar are alter egos of a split personality. :P

LOL... we've definitely got the "split" part of split personality; you'll find we disagree as much as just about anyone else here.

This is one of the rare times where I have no explicit disagreement with Shoku.

He's exactly right that "interfaith" movements that seek to gloss over important differences are a problem, and God speaks out against such things because of the potential to lead people astray. God has a serious problem with sharing the limelight with other gods (including such things as money) -- with people who only halfheartedly follow Him. He has no problem reaching in to other religions and using their ideas to illustrate who He is and what He is about, but He does have a problem with adopting other religions ideas about their gods. And any "interfaith" movement that says "we all worship God so we're all OK with each other" when we don't all really worship the same God falls into this category -- by saying they're all the same, we're adopting those other religions' ideas about God, and that's not cool.

I do want to point out, Shoku argued against "idols" and "images", and I'd imagine he includes all types of symbols in that category -- from Christmas trees to crosses. I don't think symbols qualify at all if they're not being used as idols -- if I have a cross symbol to remind me of something true about God, there's nothing wrong with that. If I choose another symbol -- a WWJD bracelet, or a rainbow, or a Christmas tree, or the stop light on the corner of 96th and Des Moines Memorial Drive -- and I use that symbol to remind me of something true about God, then it's good. But for other people, those symbols might be misused, so for them they are bad.

It would be a weak faith we held to if we simply conformed ourselves to whatever is going on around us. God is never-changing, He is the standard. When one sees it as such, one cannot simply change when one has been enlightened to the truth of God's Word. It would be hypocritical of me to go around as a Christian, and go take any active part in other religious activities.

It seems that Christianity is commonly critisized for it's view of absolute-truth. But if you have no absolutes, then that cannot be an absolute anyway, so who cares because thats wrong too, and there is no ground whatsoever for meaningful debate, or contemplation. Muslims, budhists, atheists, etc. believe what they believe because they think its right, I think they are wrong, but there can only be one right.

This may be a bit unrelated, but I just want to clarify a few things about the whole \"Catholics praising saints and Mary\" thing.

As Warhammer has previously stated, we Catholics do NOT worship Mary and the saints at the same level as God. An analogy for this would be to say that God is like the Prime Minister/President (albeit infinitely more individually powerful) and Mary and the saints are like Members of Parliament/Congressmen. We petition to our MPs/Congressmen to have them present something to the PM/President, which would be a lot easier and likely more effective than presenting our case directly to the PM/President. Likewise, we present our petitions to Mary and the saints so that they can more effectively carry those petitions to God for us.

Also, The vast majority of Catholics will ask a particular saint for a favour (i.e. St. Anthony for lost items). This would be analogous to asking a Minister/Secretary or civil servant to help us with something in their own ministry/department.

Hopefully this clears things up

BTW about the whole consumption of the Eucharistic by those not Catholic. WH also hit the nail on the head. Not only should non-Catholics not eat the Eucharistic(you can usually get a blessing instead) so should Catholics currently outside of God's grace/in a state of mortal sin. Doing so is IIRC the greatest sacrilege.

Shadowfury333 wrote:we present our petitions to Mary and the saints so that they can more effectively carry those petitions to God for us.

This Catholic practice came about as the church morphed further away from the "one faith" that existed in the first century. This is evident by the direct statement in Paul's first letter to Timothy:

"There is one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus." -1Timothy 2:5

Jesus is the only person by whom men can petition God.

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" -John 14:6

To start off with, all religion is Bullzhit.

That it's influenced by other bull is meaningless.

ThunderBunny wrote:To start off with, all religion is Bullzhit.

That it's influenced by other bull is meaningless.

X2. I spent several years researching for a book I wrote and after an honest search and study I agree.

" The truth will set you free " But to find truths one must be open to the truth and forgo all the brain washing we are raised with. (Same in nearly any society) But I admit the basic morals that are part of most religions are what allowed mankind to live together, without these "basic morals" people can't live together. What get's me is how anyone group claims that they are right and others wrong.

And it's really Paulinty not Christianty, since nearly all teachings we are giving is Paul's take on what it is to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Shoku wrote:This Catholic practice came about as the church morphed further away from the "one faith" that existed in the first century. This is evident by the direct statement in Paul's first letter to Timothy:

"There is one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus." -1Timothy 2:5

Jesus is the only person by whom men can petition God.

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" -John 14:6

Morphed? I think not. Here, read this for some clarification to your understanding.
Faithful Catholics agree with your scriptural quotations. Mary has a special place of honor (not worship) for Catholics because she is the archetype of the perfect Christian, one who does the will of God.

ThunderBunny wrote:To start off with, all religion is Bullzhit.

I prefer to think that all generalizations are false.
(except, of course, the one I just made. )

Shadowfury333 wrote:This may be a bit unrelated, but I just want to clarify a few things about the whole "Catholics praising saints and Mary" thing.

As Warhammer has previously stated, we Catholics do NOT worship Mary and the saints at the same level as God. An analogy for this would be to say that God is like the Prime Minister/President (albeit infinitely more individually powerful) and Mary and the saints are like Members of Parliament/Congressmen. We petition to our MPs/Congressmen to have them present something to the PM/President, which would be a lot easier and likely more effective than presenting our case directly to the PM/President. Likewise, we present our petitions to Mary and the saints so that they can more effectively carry those petitions to God for us.

Also, The vast majority of Catholics will ask a particular saint for a favour (i.e. St. Anthony for lost items). This would be analogous to asking a Minister/Secretary or civil servant to help us with something in their own ministry/department.

Hopefully this clears things up

BTW about the whole consumption of the Eucharistic by those not Catholic. WH also hit the nail on the head. Not only should non-Catholics not eat the Eucharistic(you can usually get a blessing instead) so should Catholics currently outside of God's grace/in a state of mortal sin. Doing so is IIRC the greatest sacrilege.

Speaking of sacrilege, I'm an atheist yet I take the Eucharist every Sunday as a Christian Catholic. I have to do it to maintain my "purity" in the eyes of the people in the church.

And just so I know my place on the sinners list, God pretty much states that His pedophile priests will enter heaven but I will be sent to hell.

I wonder how many of you I will see there.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:And just so I know my place on the sinners list, God pretty much states that His pedophile priests will enter heaven but I will be sent to hell.

Bettina

Really?? Where??? Got a reference???????

dissent wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:And just so I know my place on the sinners list, God pretty much states that His pedophile priests will enter heaven but I will be sent to hell.

Bettina

Really?? Where??? Got a reference???????

I got like 5 minutes before leaving for church so forgive the typos.

Jesus said that "I am the way" which means you can only get to heaven thru him.

If a Christian truly believes that Jesus Christ is the son of god, then he will go to heaven no matter what crime he or she committed.

Ido nt believe that Jesus was the son of god. He was just a good man.

Correct me if im wrong

Bettina

Bettina, from the direction your comming from you are correct.
\"for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God\"
so yes if those Pedophine priests TRULY have a relationship with God then they will get to heaven,
Christians are not perfect!!! just forgivin. but do not assume just because they wear a robe that they do have that relationship. it is easy to talk the talk, but walking the walk is much much harder, also as leaders (teachers of the word) in the church they will be judged to a higher standard than you, since they have that position of leadership and the ability to misslead and influence the people. also do not stereotype all priests a pedophiles, some are yes but there are many many good men out there teaching God's word in the catholic Chruch that are not. it is akin to saying that all athiests are Satan worshipers, or all protestant TV preachers only want your money. we know that is not true.

Saying you believe doesn't make you a believer; being a believer makes you a believer.

Philippians 2:12-13 -
\"So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work\"

If you really think that the pedophile priest's \"saying so\" is enough, then start here and then check out a few more of the links in the Library area.

Bett,
I went through an atheist/agnostic phase in my late teens also, much as you seem to be doing now. I was reacting in several respects to the inadequecies of a child's catechesis to the way an adult confronts the world. One of the things that helped me was to start doing some reading beyond that which children do. I suspect you are at a similar crossroads. Several people, including myself, have suggested some more adult reads in threads related to this. Have you read any of them? You're a grown-up now; you need to take a stab at some adult level catechesis. You can always reject this ultimately if you still want to, but don't do it based on a small child's understanding.

Bet51987 wrote:If a Christian truly believes that Jesus Christ is the son of god, then he will go to heaven no matter what crime he or she committed.

It is true that to go to heaven a person must "believe" that Jesus was the Christ. However, that "belief" must be from the heart, and manifest itself in the person's actions - "Faith without works is dead." James 2:26.

The term "belief," as used in the context mentioned above, actually implies in the greek the "exercising of faith." - which is what James said - what a person "does" will reveal whether or not they are actually believers.

To go to heaven a person must also manefest the fruitage of God's spirit, which includes love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, and self-control.

Those individuals who lack God's spirit manefest these things: fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of spiritism, hatreds, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these. Those who practice such things will not inherit God's Kingdom. Compare Galatians 5:19 -24

So, a priest who does not have self-control and fornicates with children will not go to heaven.

"If we practice sin willfully after having recieved the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any scarifice for sins left." Hebrews 10:26

By demonstrating disgusting works of the flesh, those sinful priests have spit in God's eye and shown that they do not have his spirit. Jesus condemned religous leaders in his day who manefested a similar disregard for God's standards, and he said they would be thrown into "gehenna." Gehenna was a valley outside Jerusalem that was used for a garbage dump. In that dump the bodies of dead criminals were burned. Understand, they were not burned as an act of torture (the bodies were dead), they were burned to completely destroy any trace of their existence. This is what will happen to those who make a practice of sin while proclaiming they represent God.

Dissent, you asked me a question and I answered it. Without getting into my personal reasons again which are all over this dbb, I have read more bibles and talked to more priests than I can remember. I don't mind going to hell for my beliefs, if it turns out that there really is a heaven and hell, but unlike the pedo priest, murderers, and child killers going to heaven because they believe Jesus was the son of god, I will go to hell knowing I never hurt my fellow human.

Cuda, I understand all priests are not pedophiles. My priest, for example, is a real believer. When he raises that Eucharist, he holds it up for the longest time and I see his eyes up close. I can read people pretty good and he is a stunning example of what a priest should be. I'm a performer, he is real.

Either way, I only answered the question.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:I have read more bibles and talked to more priests than I can remember.

The priests you've talked to must not be very knowledgeable, and you must not be using very good hermeneutics when you're reading the Bible, if you think pedo-priests are going to heaven because they're priests. By the time you're 18 years old and have read many Bibles and talked to many priests, you should know everything in the rest of my post...

Here's what Jesus says in Matthew 7:21-23:
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Jesus is saying that people who use His name and even do great things while doing so, but who don't do the will of God and who don't know Him and who do evil, will be turned away from Heaven. It seems to me this would include practicing pedophile priests (one cannot be a practicing pedophile and yet be doing the will of God.) Now, of course, if someone used to be a pedophile, murderer, rapist, or whatever else but they are transformed by an encounter with God, that's different (see 1 Cor 6:9-11, and the song "Jeffrey Dahmer went to heaven".) Jesus makes it clear -- those who are in a solid relationship with Him, which includes doing His will instead of doing evil, will live with Him in eternity; those who are not will not.

I didn't just cherry-pick that verse. The same theme is repeated throughout the New Testament (and appears in the OT on occasion.) Merely claiming the name "Jesus" or the label "Christian" or agreeing to facts about Jesus' life does not make one "saved" and fit for heaven. Heaven is God's dwelling place, reserved for those who are called (among other things) the "bride of Christ" -- those who have an intimate loving relationship with Him, who do His will and do not do evil.

It's impossible to have a loving relationship with God while living in a sinful way (and sexually abusing children is definitely "living in a sinful way".) He simply won't tolerate it; He won't have anything to do with someone living like that. He'll reach out and call people out of sin, but He won't be intimate with people who continue to live in rebellion, who continue to refuse to do His will, who continue to do evil. I speak from experience here -- He won't have anything to do with *me* when I'm living in rebellion. (No, you don't need to know the details.)