[flexxxx]

Your slogan is really really bad

[youngben]

Originally Posted by flexxxx

Your slogan is really really bad

Hi Flexxxx, am assuming this is directed at me, but am not really sure, so wont comment yet.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by ATLian

Ndigila,

why would and all-wise, all-knowing and all-powerful god give us a covenant which he knew wouldn't work (a temporary one), before giving us a better one? What sense does that make?

Okay, let me try and make this clear. The purpose of the old covenant was to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah and its purpose was fulfilled. That's what Jesus meant when he said I came to fulfill the law and the prophets. So it wasn't temporary because it didn't work (as you guys espouse), it was temporary because it fulfilled its purpose.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by youngben

1. Then is it expected for the headmaster to continue using the old bell once the new electric bell is acquired?? What do you think would happen if the headmaster continues to use both at the same time??

In context; You say that the New testament fulfils the OT, yet even in church today, clergy still bind the congregation with the OT theosophy. Any valid reason then why we use the OT in modern day christianity (and not for reference only)??

I can't claim to speak on behalf of them, but church leaders in most protestant circles depend on biblical scholasticism. So they end up deciding for themselves what parts of the Old Testament they should follow and what parts they shouldn't.

Originally Posted by youngben

2. They heard the bell alright, they chose to ignore it, there are enough incidences, like when Moses went up the mountain they built a golden calf

That still doesn't change that it was a temporary bell to be soon replaced.

Originally Posted by youngben

3. This argument has just been caught up with events in the last 48 hours, yesterday on Nation Newspaper hardcopy, i saw, that the catholic church has given a new list of what it considers new types of sin (environmental degrardation is there), and basically this has been the gist of my argument. A social problem is woven into a spiritual and religious standpoint. 500 yrs from now, the then practising christians will know Jesus preached against environmental degradation, probably, who knows, a chapter to that effect shall be "unearthed" from a long lost text

Well, according to Catholic doctrine, the Pope (as the Vicar of Christ on earth) has the authority to do that according to one of the Catholic church councils (I think it was the Council of Trent). So you'll have to ask a Catholic for their point of view regarding the whole Old covenant- new covenant transition.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by infinitepyro

Wot am sayin is god made Lucifer evil! god (if he exists tht is) is just one sadaistic screen writer writin scripts of self glorification hopin 2 b admired by other gods.

God made sin. God made evrithin. God made lucifer. God made lucifer sinful. simple.

You sound like a certain theologian named Calvin, but anyway as a Christian, I'd rather trust what the disciple of Jesus said.

[youngben]

Originally Posted by ndigila

I can't claim to speak on behalf of them, but church leaders in most protestant circles depend on biblical scholasticism. So they end up deciding for themselves what parts of the Old Testament they should follow and what parts they shouldn't.

The statement above is my argument with christianity. I will not comment on it right away, coz I think probably am blinded in my haste to prove something.

I will leave the question open for others, so that I can see whether am the only one who finds that disturbing.

Thanks ndigila for your time and effort in accomodating my questions.

[infinitepyro]

Originally Posted by sosodef

this whole notion was a total lie? what if our lives are just what they are,total coincidence and when you die you die,what if theres nothing beond life,or if theres life then its just a different world with no rulers? no laws? no creed?

why does religion pressure us to choose sides yet no one knows for sure? what about everyone before christ? you mean they dont count?

Yeah dude, thts the way it is but ppl just cant seem 2 b able 2 accept that cz it wud mean lyf is meaningles. Thts the only gud thing abt religions, they supposed 2 give ppl a goal 2 achieve n a sense of purpose.

[infinitepyro]

Originally Posted by ndigila

You sound like a certain theologian named Calvin, but anyway as a Christian, I'd rather trust what the disciple of Jesus said.

Wot did Yashua's disciple say n y wud u follow wot he/she/it may hav sed yet this logic is staring at u ryt in the face? Y is it so hard 2 accept tht mayb God isnt as brilliant nor perfect as our ignorant ancestors believed him 2 b?

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by infinitepyro

Wot did Yashua's disciple say n y wud u follow wot he/she/it may hav sed yet this logic is staring at u ryt in the face? Y is it so hard 2 accept tht mayb God isnt as brilliant nor perfect as our ignorant ancestors believed him 2 b?

Well, Jesus' disciple said that Satan deceived the whole world. If Jesus' disciple got something wrong, then there is no hope for Christianity.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by youngben

The statement above is my argument with christianity. I will not comment on it right away, coz I think probably am blinded in my haste to prove something.

I will leave the question open for others, so that I can see whether am the only one who finds that disturbing.

Thanks ndigila for your time and effort in accomodating my questions.

Hey, no problem. I can fully identify with the problems you've presented and this is the main reason why I left the Protestant church as a whole.

Back in the day during the pre-denominational era, being Christian and belonging to the church meant the same thing. Christian teachings and the liturgical life of the church were inseparable. Things began to change when the Bishop of Rome began declaring himself above the other Bishops and this essentially split Christendom into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Martin Luther made things even worse. While the problems with what he saw with the Catholic church were legitimate, his method of trying to solve that problem wasn't. Instead of trying to call for an ecumenical council (like what was previously done), he took matters into his own hands, neglected the history and tradition of the church, took the Bible, and came up with 95 theses in an attempt to restore the original church. What we have now (30,000+ denominations) is a product of this mindset, everyone reads the Bible ignoring church history (what the church has always believed) and starts a church.

I've heard so many wacky ideas of how the church is still one despite all the denominations its not even funny. Some (and these are Christians) even go to the extent of saying that no church today can claim to be the church that Jesus started so it doesn't matter which church you go to as long as you believe a few bible verses.

But anyway, the problem with modern-day Christianity is that it separated Christian teachings from the church that carefully preserved the teachings (which I believe is the Orthodox church). As a result, the Bible was elevated to a status it shouldn't have been. While the Bible does have a special place in Christianity, most Christians treat it as if it was a book that just dropped down from heaven (kind of like how the Muslims treat the Quran).

Another problem of Christianity without the Church is that Christianity is reduced to a philosophical thought. People fail to realize that one of Jesus' objectives was to start a church and not to leave us philosophizing over written documents.

Pole for the long post.