Christ, Controversy, and Cutting Words by Mark Driscoll

[Semiremis]

ferret658

Semiremis

No we do not have every right, the bible warns against it for those judging others before they take a good look at themselves and that's what I had meant in my other post. Besides, Christ did not give us all the power and authority to rebuke teach and I'd like to know where in the bible you think it says otherwise.

I know it's in there somewhere because my youth leader quotes it all the time. Let me call her tomorrow and ask her because I can't find it right now. I will get back to you with an answer, though.

Quote:

They struck very close to home but not because of what was being said but because of how much emphasis he placed on women, I get just as weary with those who concentrate all of their efforts on homosexuals. We all sin and long story short it came across to me as sexist, I watched most of it and a great majority of the speech was about the faults of women and I had to ask my self why? I know know different sermons tackle different issues and I guess it could have been just a tiny part of a larger speech?

Why are you making so many assumptions about me though? Is it so difficult to simply ask me to elaborate on what I said earlier?

I was in a bad mood....Sorry....

Quote:

It's like with Jesus telling the man without sin to cast the first stone, and no one threw a rock. Did you notice that Jesus didn't either? Do you remember what he said?

John 8:10-11 10 Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused you? Has no man condemned you? 11 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn you. Go, and now sin no more.

Jesus could have condemned her, why didn't he?

John 3:17 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

No problem, we all get in bad moods sometimes. I'll try to check back to see if you get the verses from your youth leader, I've been a bit busy lately so I might not be able to respond right away.  

[Priestley]

Semiremis

Priestley

Semiremis

Priestley

Semiremis

[H]e also gets negative points for leaving the Catholic Church.

Why?

God didn't give us the bible, he gave us the Church to guide us. The bible came 300 years later.

If you're talking about the Catholic Church as the institution with the Pope at head of it then, no, that is not the church as laid out by Jesus and the disciples. Why leaving such an institution would give him negative points isn't clear, hence my confusion at your statement and asking you to explain why.

Nevertheless, it's not important. It's a comment that seemed strange in context.

The Catholic Church was laid out by God therefore leaving that Church gets him negative points. The premise is backed by the bible and it's found in the vast majority of early Christian literature, Pauline Christian to be specific.

The logic is clear but I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in assuming you take issue with the premise?

It rests entirely on the belief that the responsibility given to Peter in being the rock on which the church would be built is transferable to other individuals chosen by lot, rather than a specific commission or prophecy of what Peter would do.

But this is an entirely unrelated topic and shouldn't be discussed here. I'm open to discuss it, though.  

[viper_353]

Semiremis

Priestley

Semiremis

[H]e also gets negative points for leaving the Catholic Church.

Why?

God didn't give us the bible, he gave us the Church to guide us. The bible came 300 years later.

Should we not say that God provides to us what we need at the time? I mean, before Jesus, people were ruled by strict laws and rules. That was how God was revealing himself, and how the people needed to be guided. Then, he sent Jesus and built churches which still stand today, but he gave us the bible to follow as his word and desires for us. People stray. A church is wanted to be directly inspired by God, but at points then all churches eventually stray from the will of God. I know it's cruel to bring it up, but a long time ago, and still today, people used 'God's name' to do some evil, evil things. God didn't want that. not ever. And from this then we can judge that obviously, people and establishments stray, but the WILL of God remains the same!!!  

[Semiremis]

viper_353

Semiremis

Priestley

Semiremis

[H]e also gets negative points for leaving the Catholic Church.

Why?

God didn't give us the bible, he gave us the Church to guide us. The bible came 300 years later.

Should we not say that God provides to us what we need at the time? I mean, before Jesus, people were ruled by strict laws and rules. That was how God was revealing himself, and how the people needed to be guided. Then, he sent Jesus and built churches which still stand today, but he gave us the bible to follow as his word and desires for us. People stray. A church is wanted to be directly inspired by God, but at points then all churches eventually stray from the will of God. I know it's cruel to bring it up, but a long time ago, and still today, people used 'God's name' to do some evil, evil things. God didn't want that. not ever. And from this then we can judge that obviously, people and establishments stray, but the WILL of God remains the same!!!

I agree with a lot of what you said and I'm glad you recognize that God created his Church to stand and not waver (or at least it looks like you recognize that). It's in the bible:

Matthew 16:18 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock [2] I will build my church, and the gates of hell [3] shall not prevail against it.

That's a very powerful statement, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The Church was built to last, it will not fall, God assures us of that and there is absolutely no reason to doubt his words and their meaning. That same verse also carries what is usually used as the first line of support coming from the bible used to establish the authority of the Catholic Church as the Church set up by God. I'm trying to find some common ground here though and it should be with the second half of the verse unless you don't believe God created his Church to prevail, to last, to not fall? If That's the case then I'm definitely curious about your reasons for doubting it.

God gave us his word, but the magisterium of the Catholic Church gave us the bible, it was discussed in different Church councils starting at Hippo in 393 and at Carthage in 397 AD:

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John.
Source: http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html#note5

The bible didn't come down on a floating cloud fresh out of heaven, the word of God was preserved by the Church for over 300 years before the the Canon was decided on. People oftentimes forget (or just didn't know to begin with) that Oral Tradition was prevalent in the history of the early church, in the time of Christ and before. This new form of Christianity were sola scriptura is espoused would have gotten some of the blankest stares by Christians living close to 2000 years, the idea would have been so foreign to them.

I agree, people have done some horrendous things in the name of God and from this (among other things) we do know that people stray, but through the word of God we know that his Church will prevail.  

[Semiremis]

Priestley

Semiremis

Priestley

Semiremis

Priestley

Semiremis

[H]e also gets negative points for leaving the Catholic Church.

Why?

God didn't give us the bible, he gave us the Church to guide us. The bible came 300 years later.

If you're talking about the Catholic Church as the institution with the Pope at head of it then, no, that is not the church as laid out by Jesus and the disciples. Why leaving such an institution would give him negative points isn't clear, hence my confusion at your statement and asking you to explain why.

Nevertheless, it's not important. It's a comment that seemed strange in context.

The Catholic Church was laid out by God therefore leaving that Church gets him negative points. The premise is backed by the bible and it's found in the vast majority of early Christian literature, Pauline Christian to be specific.

The logic is clear but I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in assuming you take issue with the premise?

It rests entirely on the belief that the responsibility given to Peter in being the rock on which the church would be built is transferable to other individuals chosen by lot, rather than a specific commission or prophecy of what Peter would do.

But this is an entirely unrelated topic and shouldn't be discussed here. I'm open to discuss it, though.

Chosen by lot? I'm not sure I understand you here.

It rests on the idea that Gods Church will prevail and not simply fall after the death of Peter. Paul illustrates this succession when he passes the word on to Timothy and instructs Timothy to do the same...to pass it on to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:2) Now (like back then) you have multiple different beliefs on what is or isn't right or true within the confines of the Christian faith but somewhere in that whole mess the truth is preserved and we know this because God told us his Church would prevail. The only Christian faith that makes any sense at all is the Catholic faith, outside of that the word of God found in both the written and oral tradition (as interpreted elsewhere in different forms Christianity) stop making sense. That's how I see it.

sweatdrop Yes, this is definitely off topic.  

[Priestley]

Semiremis

Priestley

Semiremis

Priestley

Semiremis

God didn't give us the bible, he gave us the Church to guide us. The bible came 300 years later.

If you're talking about the Catholic Church as the institution with the Pope at head of it then, no, that is not the church as laid out by Jesus and the disciples. Why leaving such an institution would give him negative points isn't clear, hence my confusion at your statement and asking you to explain why.

Nevertheless, it's not important. It's a comment that seemed strange in context.

The Catholic Church was laid out by God therefore leaving that Church gets him negative points. The premise is backed by the bible and it's found in the vast majority of early Christian literature, Pauline Christian to be specific.

The logic is clear but I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in assuming you take issue with the premise?

It rests entirely on the belief that the responsibility given to Peter in being the rock on which the church would be built is transferable to other individuals chosen by lot, rather than a specific commission or prophecy of what Peter would do.

But this is an entirely unrelated topic and shouldn't be discussed here. I'm open to discuss it, though.

Chosen by lot? I'm not sure I understand you here.

It rests on the idea that Gods Church will prevail and not simply fall after the death of Peter. Paul illustrates this succession when he passes the word on to Timothy and instructs Timothy to do the same...to pass it on to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:2) Now (like back then) you have multiple different beliefs on what is or isn't right or true within the confines of the Christian faith but somewhere in that whole mess the truth is preserved and we know this because God told us his Church would prevail. The only Christian faith that makes any sense at all is the Catholic faith, outside of that the word of God found in both the written and oral tradition (as interpreted elsewhere in different forms Christianity) stop making sense. That's how I see it.

sweatdrop Yes, this is definitely off topic.

Like I said, I'm willing to discuss it, just not here. PM me if you would.  

[Lazarus The Resurected]

Priestley

Semiremis

Priestley

Semiremis

Priestley

Semiremis

God didn't give us the bible, he gave us the Church to guide us. The bible came 300 years later.

If you're talking about the Catholic Church as the institution with the Pope at head of it then, no, that is not the church as laid out by Jesus and the disciples. Why leaving such an institution would give him negative points isn't clear, hence my confusion at your statement and asking you to explain why.

Nevertheless, it's not important. It's a comment that seemed strange in context.

The Catholic Church was laid out by God therefore leaving that Church gets him negative points. The premise is backed by the bible and it's found in the vast majority of early Christian literature, Pauline Christian to be specific.

The logic is clear but I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in assuming you take issue with the premise?

It rests entirely on the belief that the responsibility given to Peter in being the rock on which the church would be built is transferable to other individuals chosen by lot, rather than a specific commission or prophecy of what Peter would do.

But this is an entirely unrelated topic and shouldn't be discussed here. I'm open to discuss it, though.

Chosen by lot? I'm not sure I understand you here.

It rests on the idea that Gods Church will prevail and not simply fall after the death of Peter. Paul illustrates this succession when he passes the word on to Timothy and instructs Timothy to do the same...to pass it on to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:2) Now (like back then) you have multiple different beliefs on what is or isn't right or true within the confines of the Christian faith but somewhere in that whole mess the truth is preserved and we know this because God told us his Church would prevail. The only Christian faith that makes any sense at all is the Catholic faith, outside of that the word of God found in both the written and oral tradition (as interpreted elsewhere in different forms Christianity) stop making sense. That's how I see it.

sweatdrop Yes, this is definitely off topic.

Like I said, I'm willing to discuss it, just not here. PM me if you would.

Actualy Priestly, if you could just start a new topic on this i'd love to jump in.  

[Semiremis]

Lazarus The Resurected

Priestley

Semiremis

Priestley

Semiremis

The Catholic Church was laid out by God therefore leaving that Church gets him negative points. The premise is backed by the bible and it's found in the vast majority of early Christian literature, Pauline Christian to be specific.

The logic is clear but I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in assuming you take issue with the premise?

It rests entirely on the belief that the responsibility given to Peter in being the rock on which the church would be built is transferable to other individuals chosen by lot, rather than a specific commission or prophecy of what Peter would do.

But this is an entirely unrelated topic and shouldn't be discussed here. I'm open to discuss it, though.

Chosen by lot? I'm not sure I understand you here.

It rests on the idea that Gods Church will prevail and not simply fall after the death of Peter. Paul illustrates this succession when he passes the word on to Timothy and instructs Timothy to do the same...to pass it on to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:2) Now (like back then) you have multiple different beliefs on what is or isn't right or true within the confines of the Christian faith but somewhere in that whole mess the truth is preserved and we know this because God told us his Church would prevail. The only Christian faith that makes any sense at all is the Catholic faith, outside of that the word of God found in both the written and oral tradition (as interpreted elsewhere in different forms Christianity) stop making sense. That's how I see it.

sweatdrop Yes, this is definitely off topic.

Like I said, I'm willing to discuss it, just not here. PM me if you would.

Actualy Priestly, if you could just start a new topic on this i'd love to jump in.

I haven't checked to see if one was started yet, but I'll start one if it wasn't.

Edit: Never mind, I was going to start it but I'm not sure if it should be in the sub-forum on bible discussions or if it would break one of the main Guild rules on having denomination wars which it shouldn't but I'm not sure on that one. I would prefer a forum/open for all to chime in on conversation rather then PM though.  

[Priestley]

Semiremis

I haven't checked to see if one was started yet, but I'll start one if it wasn't.

Edit: Never mind, I was going to start it but I'm not sure if it should be in the sub-forum on bible discussions or if it would break one of the main Guild rules on having denomination wars which it shouldn't but I'm not sure on that one. I would prefer a forum/open for all to chime in on conversation rather then PM though.

It'd be interesting to get everyone's view on it, but I'm equally comfortable discussing it privately.

It sounds like it would be fine in the main forum. As long as there's no mention of "X denomination is better than Y denomination" and the crew keeps an eye on it, you should be okay. Then again, Ryuu could always come in and steamroller over the whole thing. xd  

[zz1000zz]

The only thing one isn't allowed to do when discussing denominations is throwing insults. You can say "X denomination is better than Y denomination" so long as you follow it with, "because Y denomination gets Z wrong."

Just don't say things like, "So all people in Y denomination are stupidheads."