I have to say reading this thread was pretty... nice... For the first time ppl involved in it, on both sides knew what they were talking about, respected each other and...
Well, whatever, after reading the whole thing I feel I've learned some stuff, it made me think... Lucy, you restored my faith in Catholic people- for some time lost it completely (being Polish I'm surrounded by them, and most of them are pretty dumb...). Nice to listen to someone reasonable...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Not exactly sure where this fits in, as there has been so much written, but I think GH asked about it at one point:
The New Testament is supposed to represent God's new Covenant with the children of Israel, replacing (to at least some extent, if not all) the Old Testament and the old covenant. Thus, Jesus' teachings to "Turn the Other Cheek" replaces the "Eye for an Eye" belief. Under that, the writings of the New Testament would replace Numbers 25 as GH alludes to, and, I imagine, great portions of Levitical Law.
The New Testament is supposed to represent God's new Covenant with the children of Israel, replacing (to at least some extent, if not all) the Old Testament and the old covenant. Thus, Jesus' teachings to "Turn the Other Cheek" replaces the "Eye for an Eye" belief. Under that, the writings of the New Testament would replace Numbers 25 as GH alludes to, and, I imagine, great portions of Levitical Law.
wow, all this shit started b/c of me (partially at least) and my rants! cool! Im a rant starter
"Under that, the writings of the New Testament would replace Numbers 25 as GH alludes to, and, I imagine, great portions of Levitical Law."
In theory, you would seem to be right. But what I don't understand is, if they're fundamentalists and therefore know and believe in the bible cover to cover, why does every one of them miss the (simply put) NT overtaking the OT?
Rhetorical question, but anyone is welcome to take a stab at it!
In theory, you would seem to be right. But what I don't understand is, if they're fundamentalists and therefore know and believe in the bible cover to cover, why does every one of them miss the (simply put) NT overtaking the OT?
Rhetorical question, but anyone is welcome to take a stab at it!
Yikes people, how does all of this relate to Queen? Isn't this a Queen message board? Debating religion and politics serves no purpose here but to piss people off.
One of the main canons of the Christian dogma is to await the Second Coming of Christ.
Taking this into consideration, it is why (I believe)fundamentalist Christians have the need to believe in every word (although the Catholic Church has said that the 'word' shouldn't be taken literally) as it is. Therefore, if you follow what Christ "said" in the NT word for word, there is a good chance they will reign with Christ when he comes back to judge the living and the dead for his millenium of heaven on Earth.
This can be disputed, of course, depending to which Christian denomination you belong to.
In the OT, according to Christianity, the promise of the Messiah has already been fulfilled. Therefore, most of them ignore it, except the 'The 10 commandments'.
However, I've seen most Christian denominations (esp. evangelicals) use the OT as more of a tie to the NT book of Revelations. The tie of of prophecy. Supposedly, and I find this interesting, that the book of Daniel and Isaiah (this one I'm not so sure, correct me if I'm wrong) does have a more of an apocalyptic tie to the NT rather than the traditional messianic message of promise of a God's kingdom on Earth.
With this, I go back to what I said in the beginning. The need of saving your soul is to believe the NT, esp the epistles (which is a 'How to Be a Christian Handbook') word for word. The fear of suffering eternal damnation is surely a threat, according to fundamentalist Christians. The injection of fear of Hell is the reason for these religious fanatics need to follow word for word what Jesus said to join him in eternal life, whatever historically accurate or inaccurate The Bible might be.
Taking this into consideration, it is why (I believe)fundamentalist Christians have the need to believe in every word (although the Catholic Church has said that the 'word' shouldn't be taken literally) as it is. Therefore, if you follow what Christ "said" in the NT word for word, there is a good chance they will reign with Christ when he comes back to judge the living and the dead for his millenium of heaven on Earth.
This can be disputed, of course, depending to which Christian denomination you belong to.
In the OT, according to Christianity, the promise of the Messiah has already been fulfilled. Therefore, most of them ignore it, except the 'The 10 commandments'.
However, I've seen most Christian denominations (esp. evangelicals) use the OT as more of a tie to the NT book of Revelations. The tie of of prophecy. Supposedly, and I find this interesting, that the book of Daniel and Isaiah (this one I'm not so sure, correct me if I'm wrong) does have a more of an apocalyptic tie to the NT rather than the traditional messianic message of promise of a God's kingdom on Earth.
With this, I go back to what I said in the beginning. The need of saving your soul is to believe the NT, esp the epistles (which is a 'How to Be a Christian Handbook') word for word. The fear of suffering eternal damnation is surely a threat, according to fundamentalist Christians. The injection of fear of Hell is the reason for these religious fanatics need to follow word for word what Jesus said to join him in eternal life, whatever historically accurate or inaccurate The Bible might be.
"Rhetorical question, but anyone is welcome to take a stab at it!"
It's a slippery slope. At what point do you completely disregard the OT and replace it with the NT? Some portions may seem out of date with the NT (Eating of Pork, for instance), yet other parts closely tie into the coming Messiah and serve to set the stage for the divine right of Jesus (ie portions of Isiah). Some try to rationalize and explain the differences, others avoid it altogether
Let's remember that Relgion does not happen in a vacuum; normal, everyday, sane people are also religious people. And normal, everyday, sane people make mistakes just like the rest of us. It's important that just because one nutter espouses some stange Christian doctrine that we don't right it off altogether.
"Yikes people, how does all of this relate to Queen? Isn't this a Queen message board?"
Yes, but just because we are Queen fans does not mean we revoke all right to intelligent thought. If you cannot handle religious debate, don't read the thread.
It's a slippery slope. At what point do you completely disregard the OT and replace it with the NT? Some portions may seem out of date with the NT (Eating of Pork, for instance), yet other parts closely tie into the coming Messiah and serve to set the stage for the divine right of Jesus (ie portions of Isiah). Some try to rationalize and explain the differences, others avoid it altogether
Let's remember that Relgion does not happen in a vacuum; normal, everyday, sane people are also religious people. And normal, everyday, sane people make mistakes just like the rest of us. It's important that just because one nutter espouses some stange Christian doctrine that we don't right it off altogether.
"Yikes people, how does all of this relate to Queen? Isn't this a Queen message board?"
Yes, but just because we are Queen fans does not mean we revoke all right to intelligent thought. If you cannot handle religious debate, don't read the thread.
MsMercury,
This is the personal section of the board.
In here, you can discuss whatever you may like.
This is the personal section of the board.
In here, you can discuss whatever you may like.
The Bible is a collection of books, right?
How historically accurate these books are (except the Psalms, Revelations, and Song of Songs)? We don't know. When were they written? We don't know.
Perhaps we should ask the Jewish historian Jocifus (sp?) on this.
It's all about faith. I have my doubts. However, if it makes some people fell better. Good for them.
How historically accurate these books are (except the Psalms, Revelations, and Song of Songs)? We don't know. When were they written? We don't know.
Perhaps we should ask the Jewish historian Jocifus (sp?) on this.
It's all about faith. I have my doubts. However, if it makes some people fell better. Good for them.
<
'How can I go to hell, then? That's something I have trouble with- I hear now very reasonable words, very ressonable concept of 'real' free will but what's the institution of hell doing in there...? Doesn't make sense to me...'
Christ paid the debt of sin when He died on the cross. Some who study the Bible think He went to hell for 3 days. While I remain sceptical on that issue, I have yet to find any real answers. On your question. You can accept or reject Christ. That is your free will, and you understand that. Christ says in the bible 'No man comes to the Father but by Me.' That means to get to the heaven the Christians believe in, you must accept Christ as Savior. By doing that people think that your life changes. Well in a way it does. Some people think that once that happens you have no more fun. Your just a stick in the mud, party pooper and so on. It's not true. At least not for me.
As for hell, that seems to be open to debate as your question has it. Hell was translated from sheol which meant 'the grave' in Hebrew. So I don't know if there is a lake of fire waiting for those who reject Christ, or if it is a literal place. Fear should not be an issue when wanting to become a Christian. I have heard these southern baptists preachers speak, and some other baptists as well, trying to scare the crap out of people with the idea of going to hell. As far as I'm concerned, I wanted to be a Christain because of the price Christ paid for me. what kind of love He must have for all of us. And His teachings as well.
Hope this helps :)
Christ paid the debt of sin when He died on the cross. Some who study the Bible think He went to hell for 3 days. While I remain sceptical on that issue, I have yet to find any real answers. On your question. You can accept or reject Christ. That is your free will, and you understand that. Christ says in the bible 'No man comes to the Father but by Me.' That means to get to the heaven the Christians believe in, you must accept Christ as Savior. By doing that people think that your life changes. Well in a way it does. Some people think that once that happens you have no more fun. Your just a stick in the mud, party pooper and so on. It's not true. At least not for me.
As for hell, that seems to be open to debate as your question has it. Hell was translated from sheol which meant 'the grave' in Hebrew. So I don't know if there is a lake of fire waiting for those who reject Christ, or if it is a literal place. Fear should not be an issue when wanting to become a Christian. I have heard these southern baptists preachers speak, and some other baptists as well, trying to scare the crap out of people with the idea of going to hell. As far as I'm concerned, I wanted to be a Christain because of the price Christ paid for me. what kind of love He must have for all of us. And His teachings as well.
Hope this helps :)
<< Christ says in the bible 'No man comes to the Father but by Me.' That means to get to the heaven the Christians believe in, you must accept Christ as Savior.>>
But then it goes into another question- do you really have to be only a christian to go to heaven...? What about ppl who are really wonderful, often much better than those who go to church every day or every Sunday but aren't christians- will they be unable to go to heaven...? What if someone doesn't choose Christ as his saviour simply by not believing in the whole story but is still a very good person, caring about the others, full of love etc... Will this person be unable to go to heaven...? Again- not something I really can agree with... Or maybe I just misunderstood sth...
Thanx anyway; I'm just really curious, knowing only the bad side of the whole religion thing (growing up in a Catholic country...)... It's extremely intresting to see the other side of the whole thing... Maybe I'm just really bored with the black and white picture I had...?
'do you really have to be only a christian to go to heaven...? '
You can be whatever you want to be. I don't take a lable. I'm just a believer, who has accepted Christ as the Savior.
'What about ppl who are really wonderful, often much better than those who go to church every day or every Sunday but aren't christians- will they be unable to go to heaven...?'
All I can tell you is what the Bible says. It says that works alone cannot get you there without Christ.
'What if someone doesn't choose Christ as his saviour simply by not believing in the whole story but is still a very good person, caring about the others, full of love etc... Will this person be unable to go to heaven...?'
You don't have to believe the whole story my friend. I don't belive that alot of things are for todays world. Like in the OT it says that a man shouldn't wear anything that a woman would. Does that mean earings? Underwear? I don't know. Also it says that it is wrong for a woman to have short hair. This is also from the OT. I don't believe it for today. All that really matters is your relationship with God. Not what you are, not what denomination you belong to, any of that. Just Him and you.
If I may suggest you read over the NT, you may come to discover some things for yourself. :)
You can be whatever you want to be. I don't take a lable. I'm just a believer, who has accepted Christ as the Savior.
'What about ppl who are really wonderful, often much better than those who go to church every day or every Sunday but aren't christians- will they be unable to go to heaven...?'
All I can tell you is what the Bible says. It says that works alone cannot get you there without Christ.
'What if someone doesn't choose Christ as his saviour simply by not believing in the whole story but is still a very good person, caring about the others, full of love etc... Will this person be unable to go to heaven...?'
You don't have to believe the whole story my friend. I don't belive that alot of things are for todays world. Like in the OT it says that a man shouldn't wear anything that a woman would. Does that mean earings? Underwear? I don't know. Also it says that it is wrong for a woman to have short hair. This is also from the OT. I don't believe it for today. All that really matters is your relationship with God. Not what you are, not what denomination you belong to, any of that. Just Him and you.
If I may suggest you read over the NT, you may come to discover some things for yourself. :)
What was this topic supposed to be about, again?
I don't know....but I'll ask him