x
New Member
Posts: 41
Likes: 27
Country: United States of America
Region: East Coast
Politics: Christian democracy
Religion: Protestantism
Hero: Dwight L. Moody
Philosophy: Aesthetics
|
Post by x on Jun 29, 2018 17:56:20 GMT
I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. What's the argument against this?
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 13, 2019 19:17:03 GMT
Like Flag-Waving Pro-War Draftdodgers, Such As John BoltonThat seems to be referring to the empty rituals being preached by the Pharisees, not to the works preached by Christ Himself. "Talking the talk, but not walking the walk" can also refer to the talk not fitting the real issue but symbolic emptiness instead.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 13, 2019 19:27:23 GMT
Amen! I need to listen to some more Christian music but idk who to listen to Lip-Syncing Lip ServiceListening to Christian music is an example of the empty works that do not indicate faith. In many cases, rather than inspire people to do those works, they make people feel they have done enough just by passively listening to the celebration of those works.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on May 13, 2019 19:37:40 GMT
Kierkegaard made big deal out of Abraham and Isaac. Apparently, K's point was that faith is above everything else -- even to a point where it would be ordinarily viewed as criminally insane. (Where "good works" figures in that picture, I don't know.) Interesting word usage of "criminally insane". I would probably define it more as believing in your faith so strongly that to some you might be viewed as insane. This would probably be the best way to define it because Christianity isn't there to make anyone a criminal because we have the commandment to love your neighbor but we must believe and half faith insanely for sure. Let's take Abraham for example since you brought him up. There came a time where God gave Abraham Isaac, the son he wanted his whole life. But Abraham was sooooo much in love with his son that God needed for him to still live Him more because we're supposed to love God more above everyone else. God wanted Abraham to decide of he loved Him still or if he loved his son more. So God gave him a test. Sometimes we won't know what we will choose or do until hard times come and that's when our actions and true intentions come out. It's like a person who needs to babysit their disabled sibling because parents had to work and that meant they had to skip a concert if they stayed home. And the disabled person cannot be left alone. So if the moment comes when the person has a choice to make about if they go to the concert and leave their sibling alone who could die it'll show exactly what means more to them...their sibling or the concert. So they'll decide and make their decision which could cost the life of their sibling. And so Abraham had a who do you love more decision. The right answers would be to stay home with the sibling and in Abraham's case to love God over your son. So, at the test Abraham was willing to let his son die in order to prove he loved God more which was the correct answer. Just like letting the concert die in that person's plans to pick the sibling is the right answer. When the right answer is chosen then nothing will go wrong. And God was so pleased with Abraham that He insured the well being of Isaac Himself for his future. This was an action of good work to God that needed tp be done in the faith because faith without works is dead. Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? James 2:21 Don't get me wrong, there are many types of Protestants and they're all very different. I don't think putting them in the same category like that defines Protestants very well and some to me seem more Catholic or Orthodox than Protestant. But one thing is clear Luther, Calvin and other big religious leaders gave their own doctrine and attained followers. I rather just go by scripture and not find a person to follow. Jesus is in the bible and bible says Christians must be the followers of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 13, 2019 19:39:19 GMT
Kierkegaard made big deal out of Abraham and Isaac. Apparently, K's point was that faith is above everything else -- even to a point where it would be ordinarily viewed as criminally insane. (Where "good works" figures in that picture, I don't know.) Kierkegaard, of course, was a Protestant. I gather theologians have mixed feelings about him, but he's certainly not without influence. Same Lutheran pastor told me that Catholicism is Aristotelian and Protestantism is Platonic, in the historical/intellectual derivation of the finer points of their respective theologies. I only dimly perceive what he's talking about, based on my extremely minimal knowledge of ancient and medieval philosophy. I suppose to fully understand, one would need to first know ancient philosophy, then the development of Catholic theology at least up to Luther's time, and then read a lot of Luther and figure out where he got his ideas (apart from, or in addition to, "divine inspiration," if any.) I'm looking for some book that would short-cut all that. One biography of Luther I did try, was unsatisfactory. All I got was, that he was quite horrible to a hundred thousand rebelling peasants, and harbored a truly murderous hatred of Jews. So, not altogether a great guy in the "good works" department. P.S. Wikipedia has item about this, titled "Sola fide." It says: "also known as justification by faith alone, is a Christian theological doctrine commonly held to distinguish many Protestant churches from the Catholic Church, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches." Etc............ "Martin Luther elevated sola fide to the principal cause of the Protestant Reformation, the rallying cry of the Lutheran cause, and the chief distinction of the Lutheran & Reformed branches of Christianity from Roman Catholicism. John Calvin, also a proponent of this doctrine, taught that "every one who would obtain the righteousness of Christ must renounce his own." According to Calvin, it is only because the sinner is able to obtain the good standing of the Son of God, through faith in him, and union with him, that sinners have any hope of pardon from, acceptance by, and peace with God." ETC.... Free Men Must Make Every Dynasty Die NastyLuther's violent hatred of Jews and peasants proves he was the bootlicking flunkie of diabolical tyrants who'd be peasants themselves without their family's money. His motive, in slavish submission to those who protected his fake revolt, was to seize Church lands and hand them over to the aristocratic enemies of human progress.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on May 13, 2019 19:46:14 GMT
Kierkegaard made big deal out of Abraham and Isaac. Apparently, K's point was that faith is above everything else -- even to a point where it would be ordinarily viewed as criminally insane. (Where "good works" figures in that picture, I don't know.) Kierkegaard, of course, was a Protestant. I gather theologians have mixed feelings about him, but he's certainly not without influence. Same Lutheran pastor told me that Catholicism is Aristotelian and Protestantism is Platonic, in the historical/intellectual derivation of the finer points of their respective theologies. I only dimly perceive what he's talking about, based on my extremely minimal knowledge of ancient and medieval philosophy. I suppose to fully understand, one would need to first know ancient philosophy, then the development of Catholic theology at least up to Luther's time, and then read a lot of Luther and figure out where he got his ideas (apart from, or in addition to, "divine inspiration," if any.) I'm looking for some book that would short-cut all that. One biography of Luther I did try, was unsatisfactory. All I got was, that he was quite horrible to a hundred thousand rebelling peasants, and harbored a truly murderous hatred of Jews. So, not altogether a great guy in the "good works" department. P.S. Wikipedia has item about this, titled "Sola fide." It says: "also known as justification by faith alone, is a Christian theological doctrine commonly held to distinguish many Protestant churches from the Catholic Church, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches." Etc............ "Martin Luther elevated sola fide to the principal cause of the Protestant Reformation, the rallying cry of the Lutheran cause, and the chief distinction of the Lutheran & Reformed branches of Christianity from Roman Catholicism. John Calvin, also a proponent of this doctrine, taught that "every one who would obtain the righteousness of Christ must renounce his own." According to Calvin, it is only because the sinner is able to obtain the good standing of the Son of God, through faith in him, and union with him, that sinners have any hope of pardon from, acceptance by, and peace with God." ETC.... Free Men Must Make Every Dynasty Die NastyLuther's violent hatred of Jews and peasants proves he was the bootlicking flunkie of diabolical tyrants who'd be peasants themselves without their family's money. His motive, in slavish submission to those who protected his fake revolt, was to seize Church lands and hand them over to the aristocratic enemies of human progress. This is true. If he hated Jews than he was not following/obeying God. God said 2 important things. 1. Love your neighbor as yourself so Jews and everyone must be loved as much as we love ourselves And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Matthew 22:39 2. There's no Greek or Jew but all are one in Christ. So we're all family. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. Romans:10:12 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians:3:28 Just loving your neighbor sums up both actually. So not sure what Luther was on about but clearly his own doctrine and not one from God, thesageofmainstreet and clem
|
|
clem
New Member
Posts: 4
Likes: 1
|
Post by clem on May 14, 2019 0:53:50 GMT
Yeah all fine.
I'm more immediately interested in "history of religion." Also good. Purely as "religion," I like Kierkegaard's "vision" of Christianity. It's an extremely difficult and lonely path.
|
|