Just wondering, here:


I checked in two translations of Revelation, and found what I recalled -- chapters 1, 2 and 3 contain the references to, and contents of, the letters to "the seven churches that are in Asia." They are specified as Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. There doesn't seem to be a letter to the church of Rome among the seven.

ETA: To be on topic here -- In my high school and college years it was quite common for lots of members of the fraternities and sororities at the state university in my home town to attend church in groups, and to be welcomed by our minister. Certainly not all the members of every chapter would attend -- mine was a Protestant church, and Catholic students would generally go to Mass at the local Catholic church or to the Newman Center next to campus. Jewish students would choose from either Hillel or the services of the local Jewish community. So I wouldn't say there was any great observable divide between Greeks and Christians or Jews.

The Church of Ephesus was the historical root of Roman Catholicism....there are several historical books that explain in greater detail...

How? The main centers of Christianity were Jerusalem, Rome, and Antioch. Constantinople didn't come into play until around 330 or so. Jerusalem was also seen as a center only until James died in the 1st Century. Last time I checked, Christianity began with Jesus in Jerusalem, so saying that Ephesus is where Christianity began would be rather false. . . .and wouldn't being Roman in name mean that it was based on teh center in ROME? Rather than Antioch or Jerusalem. . . .

Could I get a list of the books you are referencing so that I might compare them to the books that I am using?

Sarah

I'd love to have a respectful conversation with you. But the Christian Church started with Christ; and Christian worship services started in the Book of Acts (not 367 AD-years after Christ). Archeologist William F. Albright and director of the British Museum, Sir Frederick Kenion both stated that the Gospels were written 5-30 years after the death of Jesus. This is important because there were eye-witnesses to Jesus' life still alive and no one disputed it (according to first century historian Josephus).

The first "Christians" were Jewish. Think about it--they were his disciples. The Christians went through well documented era of persecution for their beliefs. According to the history books, Roman Governor Constantine stopped the persecution of Christians. His "solution" was to forbid the Christians to stop practicing their Jewish festivals and combined them with pagan festivals. For example, Dec. 25 is the birthday of the Sun God Ra. Constantine combined the celebration of Ra with the celebration of birth of Christ. We know from the Bible that Jesus was likely born around what we know as September or October. Remember that the ancient Hebrew calendar is different from ours.


Likewise, the day of worship, the Sabbath was a Saturday and it was changed to Sunday (named again after pagan god Ra). It goes on an on...it's actually quite fascinating when you study history...

When you get time-shoot me a PM--I'd love to discuss with you my research, and I'd love to hear your perspective!
Fraternally,
BFCD

Constantine worshiped the Roman god, Apollo, not the Egyptian god Ra. . . .and this was supposedly throughout his entire life. . . .

Christians could openly worship in 326AD - and Constantine was involved in the issuing of the Edict of Milan in 313 AD (which followed shortly behind the persecutions of Diocletian) making Christianity legal because he believed he saw a cross in the sun before attacking Rome and many of his troops were Christian.

The Gospels were written between 67AD and 102AD but until 367 each Christian community was using their own books and in 367AD the Bible was 'standardized' (for lack of a better word at 1am).

There were early debates about whether Gentiles first needed to become Jewish before becoming Christians - and the early Christians were actually preaching in the temples, but after 70AD the Jews were not too pleased with the Christians as they supposedly antagonized the Romans more than the Jews did, thus causing the burning of the Temple by Titus.

Sarah

You still didn't quote your source. (As in name the book, page numbers, etc)

Ra was an *Egyptian* diety. Constantine was Roman and before he converted followed a system that was a blend of the traditional Roman polytheistic system, Mithraism, and pagan magic that developed much later than that of ancient Egypt. Ra has nothing to do with it.

December 25 also has nothing to do with Ra. It was a miscalculation based on several interpretations of Luke's Gospel. A very detailed analysis of this subject is in the Catholic Encyclopedia. (You read it, right?)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

If you don't mean to offend - don't. I am assuming that you are an intelligent person that can word your thoughts in such a way that they don't offend. This is a thread about relations between GLOs and Christian orgs. It is not a place for any denomination or religion to be attacked.

I didn't say Ephesus is where Christianity began, I said the roots of Roman Catholocism were birthed out of the doctrine in Ephesus.

Many Roman Catholics believe they are the one true church of Jesus because of their interpretation of a scripture regarding Peter. Non-Catholics don't interpret the scripture that way.

I'm not saying you're good, bad, right or wrong--just giving you an explanation how denominations evolved. I've read about 50 different book studying religious history...

Athenagoras "Legito Pro Christ" Wetzburg, 1777
Catholic Encyclopedia
Dryden "Virgil" London 1709
Duran "The Reformation"
Encyclopedia Britannica
Gieseler, "Ecclesiastical History" Edinburgh 1846
"The Two Babylon"
"Rome in the 19th Century"
"Edinburgh Review" by Martin Luther, 1893
"The Kingdom of Cults" Bethany Fellowship 1977
"Romanism and the Bible" by Perry Rockford
"The Book of Revelation" Pensacola
"History of the Coucnil of Trent" by Sharpi
"History of Philosophy" London, 1687
"De Baptismo" by Tertullian
"Babylon Mystery Religion" by Ralph Woodrow
Complete works of Josephus
Miracle of the Scarlet Thread and Jesus in the Feast of Israel by Richard Booker
A survey of Israel's history--Wood
Halley's Bible Handbook--published by Zondervan
Roman Catholicism - Pastor Steve Harmon
Hebrew and Greek Language, Culture
Torah study by Messianic Jewish Rabbi
2 Year in-depth course on Old Testament prophecy..
Information, interviews from Chicago Archdiocese

There's more, but these have been my favorite resources!
Good luck on your midterms and I look forward to discussing more with you when you have time.

You didn't read my complete post. A question was raised why some people believe that Catholicism isn't Christian. I have greatly studied religion and how denominations have evolved. I offered an explanation why some people feel that way.

I did not attack anyone's beliefs. Just explained the basis of other's beliefs. Since when is expressing a different perspective necessarily attacking someone else's beliefs?

America was founded on religious freedom--Good Grief--if you can't have a conversation expressing difference of opinions or the history of beliefs or religions, we are pathetic!

Sarah,
You are not reading carefully what I wrote. I did not say Constantine worshipped Ra. I said that as governor, he combined the pagan worship with Christian worship.

Keep in mind that many "gods" had different names in different countries. For example, semiramus was also known as Isis or Venus, depending where you were from.

I propose that we continue this conversation after your midterms. Certainly that is more important than spewing off historical data.

Have a good night! :)

I do find it interesting that most of your sources are not even close to being Catholic. . . yet you claim to know so much about the Catholic Church. Have you studied the Council of Nicea? This is what the Council of Ephesus is a continuation of. . .and helped to strengthen those statements of faith solidified in Nicea. Councils are not centers of faith. . .

Did you know that Martin Luther wanted to throw out most of the New AND OLD Testaments because they didn't follow with his views of Christianity? Did you know that there is NOTHING in the Bible to support Sola Scriptura or Sola Fidai (sorry, my Latin is VERY poor - I'm refering to the protestant teaching of Faith Alone).

Think on these and your sources before jumping to conclusions about Catholicism. St. Augustine is a good one as is anything by St. Dominic, Catherine of Sienna, any Dominican for that matter, etc. are good places to start. For lighter reading, I would highly recommend the Catholic Answers website at catholic.com

Sarah

P.S. I apologize for being involved in the severely off-topic discussion going on. I attended a Catholic college as an undergrad and so Greek like and Christianity was never an issue.

If you read my later posts, I gave you just a few books to read.

Regarding Dec. 25--that is the Catholic explanation of Dec. 25. It doesn't align with all the other historical documents I researched or the timeframe that the Bible identifies as the true birth of Christ.

I'll tell you what--why don't we continue this conversation in PMs. I'm getting a little sleepy but I'd be happy to continue this conversation and give you all the documentation you want!

Respectfully,
BFCD

I wrote a paper on Catherine of Siena last night... It took me until 5 AM. :eek: :mad:

As a matter of fact I have read Council of Nicea. I have also studied the Catholic Encyclopedia and interviewed priests from the Chicago Archdioces to get their explanation.

I have studied the topic very thoroughly. With all due respect, have you studied thoroughly non-Catholic information?

I'm not jumping to any conclusions or even offering my opinion. For the umpteenth time, someone (way back on page 2 of this thread) didn't understand why some Christians don't believe Catholicism wasn't Christian. I gave an explanation.

I did not say it was good, bad, right, or wrong. Nor did I say it was my opinion. I approached my research without an opinion and with pure intent of understanding how denominations evolved.

I did not attack you or Catholocism. In fact, I said that no church was perfect and all churches have their hits and misses.

I will unsubscribe to this thread so that the rest of the chat room can move on. If you or anyone else would like to continue this conversation, please PM me.

One can only assume that you were alledging Constantine worshiped Ra as you were mentioning both in the same breath. . .Constantine actually ended up being Roman Emperor, not just governor. . .

With regards to different names for possibly the same gods, Greek and Roman are the most similar. . .Egyptian (and most others) were more different. You cannot tell me that Thor and Zeus are exactly the same, just different names. . . thus you cannot say the same for Ra and Apollo. And if you are talking about Roman wouldn't it make more sense to use the Roman names unless you are stating the person was definitely involved in the Cult of Isis, Mithraism, Dionyseus/Bacchus. These are distinct cults which were in Rome. Also, Roman Emperors were tolerant of other religions as they were specific to a region/people. Christianity, on the other hand very quickly crossed cultural lines and was affecting all parts of the Empire. It was also seen as a bothersome sect of Judaism.

With regards to combining paganism and Christianity, that's not true. Going back to the issue of the day of worship being on Sunday - it's three days after the Jewish Sabbath which begins at sundown on Friday. We KNOW that Jesus rose from the dead three days after he died. If anyone changed the day of worship if was Jesus. . . .

Anyway, I have most of my studying done now for my 2pm mid-term. . .now, just have to concentrate on Parliament and Feudalism!

Sarah

Here is the impass. We are studying two different things. I'm studying theology and you are studying sectionalism.

By the way, I HAVE studied non-Catholic and non-Christian sources, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, theology, mythology, etc. I also have studied enough of any of the social sciences to know that two sources are not enough to say that you know enough on a subject to argue it. I still highly recommend reading the Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, etc to really get a good idea about Catholicism - and basically you are also saying that all Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, etc) churches are also not Christian as they have almost the exact same faith as Catholics so (and by Catholics I mean Roman, Russian, Armanian, etc). Something to think about. To understand a faith, study its theology and its early leaders. . . .


Sarah

Either First of Second Maccabees, I think -- one of the so-called "apocryphal" books of the Old Testament that are accepted as canonical by Roman Catholics, some Anglicans and (I think) the Orthodox, but are generally not accepted by Protestants (or, I think, Jews.) That's why some Protestants and Roman Catholics can get into a "it's-in-the-Bible" "no-it-ain't" match on this subject.

Pssst....

Pssst...

(Alberto, the disgruntled priest in the Chick strips, was in jail for fraud at the time he was supposedly in the seminary. Hmmmmm...)

And I'm a recovering Catholic atheist at a Jesuit uni, in fact I'm living with a very Catholic roomie.

*Shrug* Just saying that I support Catholicism. No reason to be going to school here if I didn't.

This right here is proof why agruing about religion is sooooo difficult because nearly every book you read about ANY history is going to be bias. I went to a Lutheran school for 5 years and I'm sure I don't have to say that I was taught why Martin Luther separated from the Catholic church. They pounded that information in our heads every single year.... There was a day of celebration just for what he did. I'm sure the information that was told to you made Martin Luther seem like satan himself and my school made the Catholic Church seem like satan also. People are going to interpret the bible a MILLION different ways and they are going to naturally think that they are the only ones right. So when people talk against your religion, you shouldn't get offended as long as you feel YOU are right with God.

It's funny that I heard sooooooo many Catholic people tell me that they were NOT Christian. So are you or not?

No one has any need to kill the messenger, here. I don't mean to offend, but your own posts are doing quite an adequate job on their own.

It is clear that the sources you have been reading are not at all objective, but were written with a clear anti-Catholic bias. For that matter, there appears to be a bias against that is not Fundamentalist, whether Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and historical Prostentantism -- since some of the "issues" you mention -- take infant baptism, for example -- are practiced by the vast majority of Christians, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant alike.

Actually, not to get bogged down in details, but John instructed the churches not add or take away from what he wrote in Revelation. He certainly wasn't talking about "the Bible" since the Bible wasn't in existence yet when he wrote.

And since you have studied so much, I'm sure that you know that the Church did not decide which books should be included in the New Testament for a few centuries -- indeed, there was no understanding of "the Bible" as such for a few centuries. So how did the Church transmit the teachings of the apostles? By teaching them, handing them down from one generation to another, until the final decision could be made as to what writings comported with those teachings and should be considered Scripture. That's what the Roman Catholic Church (and the Anglicans and the Orthodox and others) mean by "Tradition" -- not "the way we've always done it," but the teaching of the apostles that has been handed down from generation to generation, some in written form (Scripture) and some in oral form.

No, you said "Catholicism is not Biblical, and here's why." Quite a difference between that and "some people think...."

And for the record, I've been a Presbyterian all of my life.

Ummm, just so we don't get the bias thing going both ways, it's a pretty gross (and anti-Lutheran) overstatement to say that Luther wanted to "throw out" most of the New and Old Testaments. I'm aware of one book he had "issues" with -- James -- and there certainly may have been more, but I think most is really going way too far.

As for their being nothing in the Bible to support Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide (Sola Gratia is the remaing prong), I think it's fair to say that, assuming the idea of Faith Alone is properly understood and not mischaracterized because of anti-Lutheran or anti-Protestant bias, that portions of Scripture, the Letter to the Romans comes to mind, can be understood to support the idea. After all, even the Vatican and the World Lutheran Federation recently signed an agreement saying that they basically agree when it come to the idea of justification by faith, although they may talk about it in different ways.

I had a feeling this thread would turn this way...all hijacked and all... :D Makes for good reading though...hehe :)

Every one of these is incorrect, misleading, or a
misunderstanding. Where's
my proof? I could write it here, but it would be a book.
Besides, the refutation or explanation of all of these can be
found at
www.catholic.com
so there's no need to do it here!

By the way, here's some common "bible church" practices
which aren't biblical:

- the word "Trinity", or its definition.
- observance of the sabbath on Sunday
- Sunday School (invented in the 1800s)
- use of "official" Sunday School books issued by the
"official" denominational Sunday School Board and/or
Pastor Know-it-All
- Daily/Personal Devotional guides/diaries
- choir practice
- youth group activities
- youth and music ministers
- regular wednesday night prayer services
- church buildings with swimming pools (baptismals) inside
- having to be "voted in" to be baptised/become member
(hey, at least this relates to a "greek" discussion...you
have to get a "bid" to join some churches, like Baptists!)
- pastor elected by congregation
- deacon's council "running the church"
- using grape juice instead of wine for communion
- Conventions/General Assemblies/Synods
- Mission board
- Seminary (preacher's school)

and I could go on and on. Don't know what year some of
these were "invented by man," but they can't be found in the
Bible! So since these practices can't be found in the bible,
does that mean any church which has any of the above
is "unbiblical"?? (I realize some churches may have some,
and not others).

Do I mean that all of the above are 'wrong' or unchristian?
No, I hold to many of the above myself. I'm just pointing out
that they are UNBIBLICAL (not mentioned in the Bible)
INVENTIONS OF MAN.

Now, to show my fairness, I'll "refute" one of my own
accusations...lets take an easy one:

SUNDAY SCHOOL:
Is Sunday School mentioned in the Bible: NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT

So is Sunday School an unbiblical invention of man? NOT REALLY

Why? What is "Sunday School?" - "a gathering of Christians to
study the scriptures"

Is that mentioned in the Bible? YES, OF COURSE.

Ah, so the practice of Sunday School (scripture study) is in the
Bible, its just is not called "Sunday School!" - CORRECT!

Now let's apply that same logic to some "Catholic Inventions"
again, lets take an easy one:

EXTREME UNCTION:
Is Extreme Unction mentioned in the Bible: NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT

So is Extreme Unction an unbiblical invention of man? NOT REALLY

Why? What is "Extreme Unction?" - a ritual whereby a priest of
the church anoints and prays over a very sick individual, including
forgiveness of sin.

Is that mentioned in the Bible? YES (New Testament even!)

James 5:14-15: "Is anyone among you sick? He should summon
the presbyters (elders/priests) of the church, and they should
pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord,
and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord
will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be
forgiven"
(note who is doing the praying: the elders/priests/presbyters,
not the sick person, though if he's conscious, he' probably
praying too!)

Ah, so the practice of "extreme unction" is mentioned in the
Bible, its just not called "extreme unction" - CORRECT!

Just my 2 cents worth!

Actually most is accurate and not anti-Lutheran. He did in fact want to throw out the majority of the old and new testaments books for various reasons but his followers were rather appalled by this. I can find you the exact information if you would like, but it will take me a few days to find the exact source again.

With regards to faith alone, I probably have not studied it as much as I could have at this point in time and am basing my information off my experiences with a few protestant denominations and being told that I JUST need to accept Jesus as my Lord and Saviour and I'm saved (nothing about God's grace, mercy, actually leading a good life, etc).

Sarah

Uh, no. Like adduncan said earlier, Ra is an Egyptian deity. December 25th is actually the feast day of Mithras (Mithraism was an early cult in Rome). Many of the churches in Rome are built over mithraeums. It is an influential thing to Christianity in general--not just Catholicism.

You talk about all this research that you've done, but then so much of it is full of fallacies and holes to make it look like a slice of Swiss cheese. It's obvious that you haven't done pure historical research, as evidenced by the quoting of Jack Chick tracts (of all things!).

Yes Ra is an Egypitan entity. And according to first century historian Josephus, that while Egyptians called him Ra, people in other parts of the world referred to him as Nimrod, Baal and others, depending on what region you lived. So uh, why don't YOU check your facts. It's funny that of the 50+ books I've read all support each other and no one has given me non-Catholic resources to support their theories.

And for the record, I did not quote Jack Chick, which shows you don't read well either. I said that a series of books by a former Jesuit Priest was available for purchase and one of the places you can get them was at Chick.com. I don't even know who Jack Chick is.

If you're going to jump into a conversation, please read carefully what was actually said.

Oh, I'm reading.

You're just looking worse and worse now. If I were you, I'd quit while I was ahead. Who cares how many books you read if they all have a bias? I don't think anyone cares how many you've read about any subject--you said something you probably should have thought about, and now you're digging yourself into a hole.

Also, maybe you should know who someone is before you reference their "work" or a website. Jack Chick is the creator of that tract on the Jesuit priest.

Okay, here's a non-Catholic source for a basic history of the circumstances leading up to the creating of the RC. Richard Krautheimer's A History of Rome.

Let me know how you enjoy it. It might be a little difficult for you.

A. I've read the book you mentioned, History of Rome and

B. the Alberto Series is not a tract--it's an autobiographical book series written by former Jesuit Priest Dr. Alberto Riveria. Jack Chick was not the author.

So before you say I am looking foolish, I suggest you (again) check your facts. For the record, the biggest volume of work where I got my research was from the Catholic Encyclopedia and from interviews of the priest at the Chicago Archdiocese who agreed with the research. I stand by my research as do several theologians who have read it.

Furthermore, the original question asked by other members was why some people do not believe Catholicism is Christian. I answered the question. I did not say that I shared that opinion and I also said that all churches fall short of Biblical accuracy.

If you'd like to continue this conversation, first read all the books I've listed since I've read your one source and then follow up in a PM because I will not dignify anymore of your unfounded accusations and personal attacks in a public forum.

I'm calling BS on this.

If you had actually read the Catholic Encyclopedia (all 11K + articles) you would have caught your mistake on the December 25 debacle. The link I posted was to the online version of that reference.

You'd also have better background in YOUR "unfounded accusations". There is a lot of detailed background in the Cath. Ency and you managed to miss it.

For all we know, you're making up the review by "theologians" and anyone from the Chicago Archdiocese. No one worth the ink on their theology degree would back up the numerology-in-the-Bible-predicted-20th-century-history line either.

People who do research accurately look for consistency in historical documentation. Yes the Catholic Encyclopedia does debate the Dec. 25 issue, but it's the only source that does and I would expect it to. (OF COURSE THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA WILL DEFEND CATHOLICISM--DUH)

It seems reasonable that if the Catholic's perspective on the issues I researched were factual, there would be other non-partisan documents to verify, but I couldn't find any. (Not to say there aren't any--but I couldn't find any written by non-partisan authors)

Even you must admit that the Catholic Encyclopedia has some bias. It was written by, for and target to Catholics. That's why it was used heavily as a reference to understand the Catholic perspective.

On the other hand, the majority of the other research documents all confirmed the Dec. 25 issue as I wrote.

You don't get to call BS until you put up some non-Catholic (or non-religious for that matter) historical documentation that supports the Catholic perspective, and read the sources I listed for yourself. (if you want the complete list, I'd be more than happy to give them to you, which includes all 66 books of the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek)

Works such as Josephus, A survey of Israel's History, Jesus in the Feast of Israel were all penned by authors of various centuries. None of the authors had an anti-Catholic agenda, they just recorded history and quoted/interpreted the Bible.

As I said, I stand by my research but it really doesn't matter, because you are going to believe what you want. So we can agree to disagree respectfully on how history was recorded and scripture interpretations, or we can take this ridiculous bantering and ongoing debate to a PM, and spare everyone else the drama.

Unless you are willing to read the sources I listed in fairness, my only conclusion is that this ongoing debate is about the desire to have the last word. So if that makes you feel better, go for it--have the last word. I have a husband, job, business, home, kids, ministry, and community service projects that need my attention. Enough is enough already.

Oh, and I'd give you the names of the Chicago Archdioces priests who I interviewed, but they could experience retaliation for privately agreeing with my research . It isn't worth putting their careers in jeopardy over a stupid Greek Chat room debate. And I won't compromise my journalistic professional standards to appease anyone, so go ahead and think what you want. I gave my word of confidentiality to them and I intend to keep it.

I won't be checking into this thread anymore because this is ridiculous! My PM mailbox is open for further debate once you've read the sources I listed. Otherwise, the horse is dead and I don't intend to keep beating it.

this is the second time you said you won't be checking the thread anymore..... my money is that you'll be back again. don't say you're leaving unless you really are!

Other basic thoughts now that i've had a shower to wake me up:

* there's a right way and a wrong way to argue. Being high and mighty and I-couldn't-possibly-be-wrong isn't the right way. If the attitude was checked at the door, perhaps this could've been a better discussion.

* talking isht on another person's religion is wrong. I'm Catholic, but I'd probably feel the same way about this no matter what religions were involved.

* Last time I checked, we live in the United States of America. We're free to practice any religion we please. There's that whole freedom of religion thing..... perhaps you should read this little thing called the Bill of Rights. It's much shorter and much easier reading than some of these books y'all are Citing, I promise you that.

* WE DON'T KNOW WHO'S RIGHT OR WHO'S WRONG- we never will. Not until the day that we die will we know the truth. Read all the books you want, frame them however you want to fit your argument. No one's argument holds a bit of weight b/c this is one area that the human population just doesn't know, and isn't every going to.

Aren't you, though,and maybe not intentionally, but in some way, attacking Catholics?

You say you talk to priests and look up all this research on the Catholic Church. How did this turn into a thread about the Catholic Church when it started out about Christian orgs? It started because you made a personal attack on all the Catholics in here and on pretty much everyone- just like dani said- id be mad if it was any religion.

Also, 20 bucks says you looked up titles of books and put them as your "sources".

You also say all these things in your life need your attention. Then why do you keep coming back? We told you earlier to take it to the PM.

Also, the bible can be interpreted into so many different ways- its very broad and thats why we have so many religons. You need to learn to respect others and keep this thread on topic. You might have tried to defend my religion, but you came off as very Anti-Catholic towards the end.

sorry if this was rude to anyone. Its early, i have a poli sci test, and ive been reading this thread and getting pissed off. not good for a cuban at 7 15 in the morning.

*thinks to herself* I hope this doesnt turn into a racial thread now because I said cuban. :D

To get waaaaaaaaaaay back on topic....

At my campus there are two christian orgs. One is more laid back and many members are greek. The other one is more strict and doesn't have many greek members but there's no hostility at all.

If you have time I would like to see it; it sounds rather different from what I have read before. PM me if you want to so we don't fill up anymore space here.

Quote:

With regards to faith alone, I probably have not studied it as much as I could have at this point in time and am basing my information off my experiences with a few protestant denominations and being told that I JUST need to accept Jesus as my Lord and Saviour and I'm saved (nothing about God's grace, mercy, actually leading a good life, etc).

A bit of an oversimplification, but not an uncommon oversimplification. Sola Fide has to be understood in the context of the Reformation era and as a response to the "popular" idea of the time that one could "earn" (or even "buy") one's way into heaven by one's good deeds and good life. Sola Fide (which is always linked to Sola Gratia -- "grace alone") maintains that it is faith alone, not works, that brings salvation. That is, that salvation is a gift (through grace) that cannot be earned but rather is accepted through faith. But (and it is a crucial but), a saving faith, if you will, is always connected to works -- faith that does not result in good works/living a good life is not a real, "saving" faith. We can discuss that more by PM if you want to. Thus endeth the lesson for today. ;)

Cheers!

Whoa--
Y'all need to chill out. BobraFCD didn't bash Catholics and she didn't raise the issue. Several other people earlier asked "why is it that some people don't think Catholics are Christian." B explained why some people think this way and where she got her information from. From what I read, this was a research project. She also said that she didn't have an opinion one way or the other and that no church is perfect. And no one told her to take it to a PM--she offered. Read it again.

Now--back to the subject: I don't think the Christian Orgs at my campus object to Greek Life so to speak, just some of the rowdy parties and drinking. I know that it isn't just Greeks who drink, but we're the ones with the reputation.

I wanted to quote Tom Earp for all of you.

-----------------------------------------------------
The HIGH POCROSY of I am Jewish ( Orthadox, Non Orthodox), The Christian, Roman, Anglecan, Luthern, The Islamic, Shiite, or what ever is getting a little thin!

Other Than I am better than thou SUCKS!

Hell, last I heard, you die, dead.!!!!!

I will come back as a danilion! Willow of the whisp!

No, An Ant, so when the GC Gathersings are going on, I can be there to ant them! Get lots of travel miles but not by Delta!
------------------------------------------------------

-Rudey
--If I had to read his crap, then so will you.

CTFreakU @ this pic!!!