To avoid a hijack of anothers thread, I was asked by arowneragain to explain what I believe since
apparantly he doesn't like it when I say mean things about other churches.

I can do so, and I will at the end of this.  

My question is, can you clearly explain what your beliefs are?  In detail?  It's harder than you might think.

So, to start it off, here's mine.  Specifically regarding churches and their doctrines.
I'm not talking spelling out the catechism, but what you believe about the role of churches
and how they operate.


I am Anglican.    And I'm pretty sure you've never seen me say anything bad about Christianity,
only the self serving perversion of it that some churches choose to practice.

And, disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church on 3 or 4 of the 400+
things in their Catechism does not make a basher, although there
are a few things that I get pretty upset about.  


In general I believe what I think are some reasonable things concerning churches:

1) Priests should have a Theology degree, not just be able to write a check and
     get a license.  Many denominations have extremely low educational requirements for
     their clergy.  I believe that is a bad idea. Many churches will ordain a minister simply
     by paying a fee.  It takes more than good intentions to be a minister.

2) I believe a church needs to be able to put, in writing, EXACTLY what they believe and any
    doctrine they follow, and they need to TEACH that to their congregations.  If you are
     going to join a group, you need to understand exactly what you are joining.  I am
    constantly amazed at people who claim to be one denomination or another and can't
    tell you in detail what that denomination stands for.  That's why these non-denominational
    churches make no sense to me.  I also believe that a church needs to be able to print
   these things and show them in public.  If you have some doctrines of faith that are
    reserved for the "inner circle" then you sink your credibility in my mind.  Scientology
    and Mormons seem to have this problem.  They are full of rumors and writings from
    former members claiming that there are doctrine that are hid from general membership.

3)  Following that, if you claim to be of a certain denomination, you can't pick and choose which
     doctrine you believe, taking some as a matter of fact and ignoring others.  That one is  
      tossed out a lot too I notice.  "well, my denomination says that but my local preacher
     says we don't have to do it that way"  (See #1 for the resolution to that).

4)  Be able to back up with a reasoned response why you chose the faith you chose.  If you were
    born into a denomination that's fine, but if you remain there solely because of that you
    might not even know what they believe.

5)  Realize that there are MANY people better versed in theology than you, even if they are  
    from another faith.  You will see very many times where I quote Pope Pius XII, even
   though I do not believe in the whole Pope thing.  This man was one of the best theologians
    of all time, Pope or not.   What some preacher from Oklahoma tells me the bible says does
    not carry nearly as much substance as do those that spend their entire lives studying nothing else.

6)  Churches should not exist for monetary gain.  It is very difficult to argue that ANY of these TV
    guys are there for the right reasons, regardless of how good they might sound.  Gene Scott
    was a pretty good teacher, and a reasonable theologian.   I don't think he was worth a
    damn as a preacher however, since money was a motivator.  Click around on Sunday mornings
    sometime to see what this gets you.

7)  Tolerance of other religions is not required.  Lots of churches lately have been real careful
     not to offend other religions.   Personally I think that's ridiculous.  You certainly can't stop
     someone from believing what they want, but I don't think you have to be nice about it
     particularly.    As a Christian I find the Jewish faith to be abhorrant, and I don't mind
     saying so.   Christ was the Messiah, and that is that in my mind.  I don't have to hide
      that belief or be extra nice to avoid conflict with Jews.  I have to respect their right to
     believe what they believe, but I have the right to try to change their minds, and the duty.


So all this nonsense about "bashing" anytime you say something that another denomination doesn't
agree with is just whining. So, if that's bashing then I'm OK with that I guess.

What say you?

Quoted: To avoid a hijack of anothers thread, I was asked by arowneragain to explain what I believe since apparantly he doesn't like it when I say mean things about other churches. I can do so, and I will at the end of this.   My question is, can you clearly explain what your beliefs are?  In detail?  It's harder than you might think. So, to start it off, here's mine.  Specifically regarding churches and their doctrines. I'm not talking spelling out the catechism, but what you believe about the role of churches and how they operate. I am Anglican.    And I'm pretty sure you've never seen me say anything bad about Christianity, only the self serving perversion of it that some churches choose to practice. And, disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church on 3 or 4 of the 400+ things in their Catechism does not make a basher, although there are a few things that I get pretty upset about.   In general I believe what I think are some reasonable things concerning churches: 1) Priests should have a Theology degree, not just be able to write a check and      get a license.  Many denominations have extremely low educational requirements for      their clergy.  I believe that is a bad idea. Many churches will ordain a minister simply      by paying a fee.  It takes more than good intentions to be a minister.

I hate to 'come out swinging' but I TOTALLY disagree with this one. I'd say that - to the best that one man can ever hope to discern the intentions of another - there is a direct correlation between education and worldiness, even within the church. I'm sure we ALL know people who are well-versed in theology, but spiritually cold. I'd MUCH rather have a pastor who understood

1) Jesus died for our sins
2) love one another
3) forgive
4) we're all sinners

than to have one who knew intricate detail of history but in their heart had forgotten the most important parts of the Gospel.

2) I believe a church needs to be able to put, in writing, EXACTLY what they believe and any     doctrine they follow, and they need to TEACH that to their congregations.  If you are      going to join a group, you need to understand exactly what you are joining.  I am     constantly amazed at people who claim to be one denomination or another and can't     tell you in detail what that denomination stands for.  That's why these non-denominational     churches make no sense to me.  I also believe that a church needs to be able to print    these things and show them in public.  If you have some doctrines of faith that are     reserved for the "inner circle" then you sink your credibility in my mind.  Scientology     and Mormons seem to have this problem.  They are full of rumors and writings from     former members claiming that there are doctrine that are hid from general membership.

Agreed.

I genuinely wish that churches in general would publish exactly what they believe, instead of little snippets that seldom see the light of day. Funny, but one of the reasons I defended 'pentecostals' in the other thread you mention, was because of their openness in outlining some basic (but too often overlooked) matters of conduct.

3)  Following that, if you claim to be of a certain denomination, you can't pick and choose which      doctrine you believe, taking some as a matter of fact and ignoring others.  That one is         tossed out a lot too I notice.  "well, my denomination says that but my local preacher      says we don't have to do it that way"  (See #1 for the resolution to that).

And this is why I am considered to be a 'member' of a baptist church, and I go there regularly, but never claim to be 'baptist' anymore. I don't agree with the SBC on MANY issues.

Having said that, if I let a single issue force me away from the church, I'd have to start my own church. All of us would.

4)  Be able to back up with a reasoned response why you chose the faith you chose.  If you were born into a denomination that's fine, but if you remain there solely because of that you     might not even know what they believe.

I agree! MANY people go to churches that diamterically oppose their own beliefs. It's a matter of laziness. OTOH, we're not all called to be deep theologians.

5)  Realize that there are MANY people better versed in theology than you, even if they are       from another faith.  You will see very many times where I quote Pope Pius XII, even    though I do not believe in the whole Pope thing.  This man was one of the best theologians     of all time, Pope or not.   What some preacher from Oklahoma tells me the bible says does     not carry nearly as much substance as do those that spend their entire lives studying nothing else.

And what the Bible tells me carries 100000 times more weight than what ANYONE tells me. Why even consider the messenger when judging a message? Go straight to the scripture and see for yourself......

6)  Churches should not exist for monetary gain.  It is very difficult to argue that ANY of these TV     guys are there for the right reasons, regardless of how good they might sound.  Gene Scott     was a pretty good teacher, and a reasonable theologian.   I don't think he was worth a     damn as a preacher however, since money was a motivator.  Click around on Sunday mornings     sometime to see what this gets you.

To the extent that church becomes an enterprise, I agree. However, I'm thrilled to hear of ANY amount of money being spent to spread the Gospel. Even if the money is raised by selling cheesy wares on TBN infomercials.

7)  Tolerance of other religions is not required.  Lots of churches lately have been real careful      not to offend other religions.   Personally I think that's ridiculous.  You certainly can't stop      someone from believing what they want, but I don't think you have to be nice about it      particularly.    As a Christian I find the Jewish faith to be abhorrant, and I don't mind      saying so.   Christ was the Messiah, and that is that in my mind.  I don't have to hide       that belief or be extra nice to avoid conflict with Jews.  I have to respect their right to      believe what they believe, but I have the right to try to change their minds, and the duty.

A-Men!

<--non-alcoholic

So all this nonsense about "bashing" anytime you say something that another denomination doesn't agree with is just whining. So, if that's bashing then I'm OK with that I guess.

I'm OK with bashing as long as it is 100% CLEAR that the practice you're bashing is truly heresy.

A lot of 'bashing' crosses the line between denominations. I honestly, genuinely believe that the Body of Christ would be in much better shape if we would set aside some of our differences and come together to worship and fellowship without splitting over some small doctrinal issues. Of course, as stated elsewhere, the definition of 'small' as it relates to the relative importance of various doctrinal disagreements, is where the problem lies. What I see as blatant heresy may be no big deal to you, and vice-versa.

What say you?

I say you need to give us a cliff-notes type synopsis of the anglican church, since it's rarely represented here.

I'll take a stab at it, and at the risk of calling down fire from on high , I'll start by saying that some of my doctrinal beliefs and are evolving.

Non-negotiable:

I am a Christian.  I believe in the I AM triune God; Father, Son and Holy Sprit.  I believe that the historical person of Jesus was all man, and all God; the Messiah foretold by the Old Testament prophets, born of a virgin, died on the cross at Calvary, and was raised from the dead on the third day.  I believe that His act of pure and righteous atonement covers my sin, and makes me acceptable to God, so that I may subsequently avoid everlasting Judgment in eternity.

Doctrine (somewhat subject to change, but not much):

Scripture - I believe that inerrant Scripture is sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience.  I deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian's conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

Christ - I believe that salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father (see non-negotiable above).

Grace - I believe that we are rescued from God's wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life. I utterly reject the idea that salvation is in any sense a human work, nor is Faith produced by our unregenerated human nature.

Faith - Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God's perfect justice.  Justification does not rest on any merit to be found in us, or upon the grounds of an infusion of Christ's righteousness in us, or in an institution claiming to be a church that denies or condemns this faith.

All Glory belongs to God - Because salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God, it is for God's glory and that we must glorify him always. We must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God and for his glory alone.

(In essence these are 5 "solas" of classic Reformed theology)

Darn near everything else is negotiable, and my beliefs run from being aligned with Messianic Judaism on the observance of the Lord's Supper / Passover, to partial Preterism when it comes to eschatology.  In short, if you can convince me of a particular belief based on the Word, and I can't come up with a good argument using the same, I leave it up to the Holy Spirit to decide which way I go.

More along what TexasSig was looking for maybe:

1) Re: Theology / Denominations.  I am a former "dispensationalist" that now subscribes to "systematic" theology.  It does not matter to me what degrees a preacher/teacher/priest/reverend has, as long as he preaches the Gospel of Christ.  I'll take what I can from anyone when it comes to the little stuff. As far what denomination they belong to, I could care less.  I do not attend a physical church building, nor do I currently submit myself to a governing organization.

2) Re: Statements of Belief. The reason for the last sentence above.

3) Re: Claiming a Denomination. The reason I don't claim to be of a certain denomination, is that I haven't found any denominations not to be dogmatic on the "little" things (yet, hopefully).

4) My "reasoned response" to my beliefs is this:  While I do not have a degree in divinity philosophy or theology, I've studied under many that do.  I respect their opinions and beliefs even when I don't necessarily agree with them.  I've attended (without graduating ) two separate "Bible Colleges", and have tried to expose myself to everything within Christendom from Eastern Orthodox to Pentecostal.  My statement of faith above comes from sifting the good from the bad as I have been able to.

5) Re: Theologians.  Agreed.  One of the reasons I believe what I believe, has come from reading Church history, and the opinions of theologians that lived it.  Generally I don't discount  modern "theologians" (Sproul), unless they're feeding me crap (Lucado).

6) Re: Money.  Agreed, enuff said.

7) Re: Tolerance.  I see no problem with treating other's beliefs with respect.  After that, all bets are off.


Edit 1 for spelling.  Edit 2 to hit on some of the points asked by TexasSig.

Quoted: To avoid a hijack of anothers thread, I was asked by arowneragain to explain what I believe since apparantly he doesn't like it when I say mean things about other churches. I can do so, and I will at the end of this.   My question is, can you clearly explain what your beliefs are?  In detail?  It's harder than you might think. So, to start it off, here's mine.  Specifically regarding churches and their doctrines. I'm not talking spelling out the catechism, but what you believe about the role of churches and how they operate. I am Anglican.    And I'm pretty sure you've never seen me say anything bad about Christianity, only the self serving perversion of it that some churches choose to practice. And, disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church on 3 or 4 of the 400+ things in their Catechism does not make a basher, although there are a few things that I get pretty upset about.   In general I believe what I think are some reasonable things concerning churches: 1) Priests should have a Theology degree, not just be able to write a check and      get a license.  Many denominations have extremely low educational requirements for      their clergy.  I believe that is a bad idea. Many churches will ordain a minister simply      by paying a fee.  It takes more than good intentions to be a minister. 2) I believe a church needs to be able to put, in writing, EXACTLY what they believe and any     doctrine they follow, and they need to TEACH that to their congregations.  If you are      going to join a group, you need to understand exactly what you are joining.  I am     constantly amazed at people who claim to be one denomination or another and can't     tell you in detail what that denomination stands for.  That's why these non-denominational     churches make no sense to me.  I also believe that a church needs to be able to print    these things and show them in public.  If you have some doctrines of faith that are     reserved for the "inner circle" then you sink your credibility in my mind.  Scientology     and Mormons seem to have this problem.  They are full of rumors and writings from     former members claiming that there are doctrine that are hid from general membership. 3)  Following that, if you claim to be of a certain denomination, you can't pick and choose which      doctrine you believe, taking some as a matter of fact and ignoring others.  That one is         tossed out a lot too I notice.  "well, my denomination says that but my local preacher      says we don't have to do it that way"  (See #1 for the resolution to that). 4)  Be able to back up with a reasoned response why you chose the faith you chose.  If you were     born into a denomination that's fine, but if you remain there solely because of that you     might not even know what they believe. 5)  Realize that there are MANY people better versed in theology than you, even if they are       from another faith.  You will see very many times where I quote Pope Pius XII, even    though I do not believe in the whole Pope thing.  This man was one of the best theologians     of all time, Pope or not.   What some preacher from Oklahoma tells me the bible says does     not carry nearly as much substance as do those that spend their entire lives studying nothing else. 6)  Churches should not exist for monetary gain.  It is very difficult to argue that ANY of these TV     guys are there for the right reasons, regardless of how good they might sound.  Gene Scott     was a pretty good teacher, and a reasonable theologian.   I don't think he was worth a     damn as a preacher however, since money was a motivator.  Click around on Sunday mornings     sometime to see what this gets you. 7)  Tolerance of other religions is not required.  Lots of churches lately have been real careful      not to offend other religions.   Personally I think that's ridiculous.  You certainly can't stop      someone from believing what they want, but I don't think you have to be nice about it      particularly.    As a Christian I find the Jewish faith to be abhorrant, and I don't mind      saying so.   Christ was the Messiah, and that is that in my mind.  I don't have to hide       that belief or be extra nice to avoid conflict with Jews.  I have to respect their right to      believe what they believe, but I have the right to try to change their minds, and the duty. So all this nonsense about "bashing" anytime you say something that another denomination doesn't agree with is just whining. So, if that's bashing then I'm OK with that I guess. What say you?

double post

Quoted: Quoted: To avoid a hijack of anothers thread, I was asked by arowneragain to explain what I believe since apparantly he doesn't like it when I say mean things about other churches. I can do so, and I will at the end of this.   My question is, can you clearly explain what your beliefs are?  In detail?  It's harder than you might think. So, to start it off, here's mine.  Specifically regarding churches and their doctrines. I'm not talking spelling out the catechism, but what you believe about the role of churches and how they operate. I am Anglican.    And I'm pretty sure you've never seen me say anything bad about Christianity, only the self serving perversion of it that some churches choose to practice. And, disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church on 3 or 4 of the 400+ things in their Catechism does not make a basher, although there are a few things that I get pretty upset about.   In general I believe what I think are some reasonable things concerning churches: 1) Priests should have a Theology degree, not just be able to write a check and      get a license.  Many denominations have extremely low educational requirements for      their clergy.  I believe that is a bad idea. Many churches will ordain a minister simply      by paying a fee.  It takes more than good intentions to be a minister. I hate to 'come out swinging' but I TOTALLY disagree with this one. I'd say that - to the best that one man can ever hope to discern the intentions of another - there is a direct correlation between education and worldiness, even within the church. I'm sure we ALL know people who are well-versed in theology, but spiritually cold. I'd MUCH rather have a pastor who understood 1) Jesus died for our sins 2) love one another 3) forgive 4) we're all sinners than to have one who knew intricate detail of history but in their heart had forgotten the most important parts of the Gospel. 2) I believe a church needs to be able to put, in writing, EXACTLY what they believe and any     doctrine they follow, and they need to TEACH that to their congregations.  If you are      going to join a group, you need to understand exactly what you are joining.  I am     constantly amazed at people who claim to be one denomination or another and can't     tell you in detail what that denomination stands for.  That's why these non-denominational     churches make no sense to me.  I also believe that a church needs to be able to print    these things and show them in public.  If you have some doctrines of faith that are     reserved for the "inner circle" then you sink your credibility in my mind.  Scientology     and Mormons seem to have this problem.  They are full of rumors and writings from     former members claiming that there are doctrine that are hid from general membership. Agreed. I genuinely wish that churches in general would publish exactly what they believe, instead of little snippets that seldom see the light of day. Funny, but one of the reasons I defended 'pentecostals' in the other thread you mention, was because of their openness in outlining some basic (but too often overlooked) matters of conduct. 3)  Following that, if you claim to be of a certain denomination, you can't pick and choose which      doctrine you believe, taking some as a matter of fact and ignoring others.  That one is         tossed out a lot too I notice.  "well, my denomination says that but my local preacher      says we don't have to do it that way"  (See #1 for the resolution to that). And this is why I am considered to be a 'member' of a baptist church, and I go there regularly, but never claim to be 'baptist' anymore. I don't agree with the SBC on MANY issues. Having said that, if I let a single issue force me away from the church, I'd have to start my own church. All of us would. 4)  Be able to back up with a reasoned response why you chose the faith you chose.  If you were born into a denomination that's fine, but if you remain there solely because of that you     might not even know what they believe. I agree! MANY people go to churches that diamterically oppose their own beliefs. It's a matter of laziness. OTOH, we're not all called to be deep theologians. 5)  Realize that there are MANY people better versed in theology than you, even if they are       from another faith.  You will see very many times where I quote Pope Pius XII, even    though I do not believe in the whole Pope thing.  This man was one of the best theologians     of all time, Pope or not.   What some preacher from Oklahoma tells me the bible says does     not carry nearly as much substance as do those that spend their entire lives studying nothing else. And what the Bible tells me carries 100000 times more weight than what ANYONE tells me. Why even consider the messenger when judging a message? Go straight to the scripture and see for yourself...... 6)  Churches should not exist for monetary gain.  It is very difficult to argue that ANY of these TV     guys are there for the right reasons, regardless of how good they might sound.  Gene Scott     was a pretty good teacher, and a reasonable theologian.   I don't think he was worth a     damn as a preacher however, since money was a motivator.  Click around on Sunday mornings     sometime to see what this gets you. To the extent that church becomes an enterprise, I agree. However, I'm thrilled to hear of ANY amount of money being spent to spread the Gospel. Even if the money is raised by selling cheesy wares on TBN infomercials. 7)  Tolerance of other religions is not required.  Lots of churches lately have been real careful      not to offend other religions.   Personally I think that's ridiculous.  You certainly can't stop      someone from believing what they want, but I don't think you have to be nice about it      particularly.    As a Christian I find the Jewish faith to be abhorrant, and I don't mind      saying so.   Christ was the Messiah, and that is that in my mind.  I don't have to hide       that belief or be extra nice to avoid conflict with Jews.  I have to respect their right to      believe what they believe, but I have the right to try to change their minds, and the duty. A-Men! <--non-alcoholic So all this nonsense about "bashing" anytime you say something that another denomination doesn't agree with is just whining. So, if that's bashing then I'm OK with that I guess. I'm OK with bashing as long as it is 100% CLEAR that the practice you're bashing is truly heresy. A lot of 'bashing' crosses the line between denominations. I honestly, genuinely believe that the Body of Christ would be in much better shape if we would set aside some of our differences and come together to worship and fellowship without splitting over some small doctrinal issues. Of course, as stated elsewhere, the definition of 'small' as it relates to the relative importance of various doctrinal disagreements, is where the problem lies. What I see as blatant heresy may be no big deal to you, and vice-versa. What say you?   I say you need to give us a cliff-notes type synopsis of the anglican church, since it's rarely represented here.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: To avoid a hijack of anothers thread, I was asked by arowneragain to explain what I believe since apparantly he doesn't like it when I say mean things about other churches. I can do so, and I will at the end of this.   My question is, can you clearly explain what your beliefs are?  In detail?  It's harder than you might think. So, to start it off, here's mine.  Specifically regarding churches and their doctrines. I'm not talking spelling out the catechism, but what you believe about the role of churches and how they operate. I am Anglican.    And I'm pretty sure you've never seen me say anything bad about Christianity, only the self serving perversion of it that some churches choose to practice. And, disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church on 3 or 4 of the 400+ things in their Catechism does not make a basher, although there are a few things that I get pretty upset about.   In general I believe what I think are some reasonable things concerning churches: 1) Priests should have a Theology degree, not just be able to write a check and      get a license.  Many denominations have extremely low educational requirements for      their clergy.  I believe that is a bad idea. Many churches will ordain a minister simply      by paying a fee.  It takes more than good intentions to be a minister. I hate to 'come out swinging' but I TOTALLY disagree with this one. I'd say that - to the best that one man can ever hope to discern the intentions of another - there is a direct correlation between education and worldiness, even within the church. I'm sure we ALL know people who are well-versed in theology, but spiritually cold. I'd MUCH rather have a pastor who understood 1) Jesus died for our sins 2) love one another 3) forgive 4) we're all sinners than to have one who knew intricate detail of history but in their heart had forgotten the most important parts of the Gospel. 2) I believe a church needs to be able to put, in writing, EXACTLY what they believe and any     doctrine they follow, and they need to TEACH that to their congregations.  If you are      going to join a group, you need to understand exactly what you are joining.  I am     constantly amazed at people who claim to be one denomination or another and can't     tell you in detail what that denomination stands for.  That's why these non-denominational     churches make no sense to me.  I also believe that a church needs to be able to print    these things and show them in public.  If you have some doctrines of faith that are     reserved for the "inner circle" then you sink your credibility in my mind.  Scientology     and Mormons seem to have this problem.  They are full of rumors and writings from     former members claiming that there are doctrine that are hid from general membership. Agreed. I genuinely wish that churches in general would publish exactly what they believe, instead of little snippets that seldom see the light of day. Funny, but one of the reasons I defended 'pentecostals' in the other thread you mention, was because of their openness in outlining some basic (but too often overlooked) matters of conduct. 3)  Following that, if you claim to be of a certain denomination, you can't pick and choose which      doctrine you believe, taking some as a matter of fact and ignoring others.  That one is         tossed out a lot too I notice.  "well, my denomination says that but my local preacher      says we don't have to do it that way"  (See #1 for the resolution to that). And this is why I am considered to be a 'member' of a baptist church, and I go there regularly, but never claim to be 'baptist' anymore. I don't agree with the SBC on MANY issues. Having said that, if I let a single issue force me away from the church, I'd have to start my own church. All of us would. 4)  Be able to back up with a reasoned response why you chose the faith you chose.  If you were born into a denomination that's fine, but if you remain there solely because of that you     might not even know what they believe. I agree! MANY people go to churches that diamterically oppose their own beliefs. It's a matter of laziness. OTOH, we're not all called to be deep theologians. 5)  Realize that there are MANY people better versed in theology than you, even if they are       from another faith.  You will see very many times where I quote Pope Pius XII, even    though I do not believe in the whole Pope thing.  This man was one of the best theologians     of all time, Pope or not.   What some preacher from Oklahoma tells me the bible says does     not carry nearly as much substance as do those that spend their entire lives studying nothing else. And what the Bible tells me carries 100000 times more weight than what ANYONE tells me. Why even consider the messenger when judging a message? Go straight to the scripture and see for yourself...... 6)  Churches should not exist for monetary gain.  It is very difficult to argue that ANY of these TV     guys are there for the right reasons, regardless of how good they might sound.  Gene Scott     was a pretty good teacher, and a reasonable theologian.   I don't think he was worth a     damn as a preacher however, since money was a motivator.  Click around on Sunday mornings     sometime to see what this gets you. To the extent that church becomes an enterprise, I agree. However, I'm thrilled to hear of ANY amount of money being spent to spread the Gospel. Even if the money is raised by selling cheesy wares on TBN infomercials. 7)  Tolerance of other religions is not required.  Lots of churches lately have been real careful      not to offend other religions.   Personally I think that's ridiculous.  You certainly can't stop      someone from believing what they want, but I don't think you have to be nice about it      particularly.    As a Christian I find the Jewish faith to be abhorrant, and I don't mind      saying so.   Christ was the Messiah, and that is that in my mind.  I don't have to hide       that belief or be extra nice to avoid conflict with Jews.  I have to respect their right to      believe what they believe, but I have the right to try to change their minds, and the duty. A-Men! <--non-alcoholic So all this nonsense about "bashing" anytime you say something that another denomination doesn't agree with is just whining. So, if that's bashing then I'm OK with that I guess. I'm OK with bashing as long as it is 100% CLEAR that the practice you're bashing is truly heresy. A lot of 'bashing' crosses the line between denominations. I honestly, genuinely believe that the Body of Christ would be in much better shape if we would set aside some of our differences and come together to worship and fellowship without splitting over some small doctrinal issues. Of course, as stated elsewhere, the definition of 'small' as it relates to the relative importance of various doctrinal disagreements, is where the problem lies. What I see as blatant heresy may be no big deal to you, and vice-versa. What say you?   I say you need to give us a cliff-notes type synopsis of the anglican church, since it's rarely represented here.

Wow.

You learned how to use the 'quote' button.


Now, please, why don't you and oldguy crawl back under the bridge you live under? We could do without the trolling here.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: To avoid a hijack of anothers thread, I was asked by arowneragain to explain what I believe since apparantly he doesn't like it when I say mean things about other churches. I can do so, and I will at the end of this.   My question is, can you clearly explain what your beliefs are?  In detail?  It's harder than you might think. So, to start it off, here's mine.  Specifically regarding churches and their doctrines. I'm not talking spelling out the catechism, but what you believe about the role of churches and how they operate. I am Anglican.    And I'm pretty sure you've never seen me say anything bad about Christianity, only the self serving perversion of it that some churches choose to practice. And, disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church on 3 or 4 of the 400+ things in their Catechism does not make a basher, although there are a few things that I get pretty upset about.   In general I believe what I think are some reasonable things concerning churches: 1) Priests should have a Theology degree, not just be able to write a check and      get a license.  Many denominations have extremely low educational requirements for      their clergy.  I believe that is a bad idea. Many churches will ordain a minister simply      by paying a fee.  It takes more than good intentions to be a minister. I hate to 'come out swinging' but I TOTALLY disagree with this one. I'd say that - to the best that one man can ever hope to discern the intentions of another - there is a direct correlation between education and worldiness, even within the church. I'm sure we ALL know people who are well-versed in theology, but spiritually cold. I'd MUCH rather have a pastor who understood 1) Jesus died for our sins 2) love one another 3) forgive 4) we're all sinners than to have one who knew intricate detail of history but in their heart had forgotten the most important parts of the Gospel. 2) I believe a church needs to be able to put, in writing, EXACTLY what they believe and any     doctrine they follow, and they need to TEACH that to their congregations.  If you are      going to join a group, you need to understand exactly what you are joining.  I am     constantly amazed at people who claim to be one denomination or another and can't     tell you in detail what that denomination stands for.  That's why these non-denominational     churches make no sense to me.  I also believe that a church needs to be able to print    these things and show them in public.  If you have some doctrines of faith that are     reserved for the "inner circle" then you sink your credibility in my mind.  Scientology     and Mormons seem to have this problem.  They are full of rumors and writings from     former members claiming that there are doctrine that are hid from general membership. Agreed. I genuinely wish that churches in general would publish exactly what they believe, instead of little snippets that seldom see the light of day. Funny, but one of the reasons I defended 'pentecostals' in the other thread you mention, was because of their openness in outlining some basic (but too often overlooked) matters of conduct. 3)  Following that, if you claim to be of a certain denomination, you can't pick and choose which      doctrine you believe, taking some as a matter of fact and ignoring others.  That one is         tossed out a lot too I notice.  "well, my denomination says that but my local preacher      says we don't have to do it that way"  (See #1 for the resolution to that). And this is why I am considered to be a 'member' of a baptist church, and I go there regularly, but never claim to be 'baptist' anymore. I don't agree with the SBC on MANY issues. Having said that, if I let a single issue force me away from the church, I'd have to start my own church. All of us would. 4)  Be able to back up with a reasoned response why you chose the faith you chose.  If you were born into a denomination that's fine, but if you remain there solely because of that you     might not even know what they believe. I agree! MANY people go to churches that diamterically oppose their own beliefs. It's a matter of laziness. OTOH, we're not all called to be deep theologians. 5)  Realize that there are MANY people better versed in theology than you, even if they are       from another faith.  You will see very many times where I quote Pope Pius XII, even    though I do not believe in the whole Pope thing.  This man was one of the best theologians     of all time, Pope or not.   What some preacher from Oklahoma tells me the bible says does     not carry nearly as much substance as do those that spend their entire lives studying nothing else. And what the Bible tells me carries 100000 times more weight than what ANYONE tells me. Why even consider the messenger when judging a message? Go straight to the scripture and see for yourself...... 6)  Churches should not exist for monetary gain.  It is very difficult to argue that ANY of these TV     guys are there for the right reasons, regardless of how good they might sound.  Gene Scott     was a pretty good teacher, and a reasonable theologian.   I don't think he was worth a     damn as a preacher however, since money was a motivator.  Click around on Sunday mornings     sometime to see what this gets you. To the extent that church becomes an enterprise, I agree. However, I'm thrilled to hear of ANY amount of money being spent to spread the Gospel. Even if the money is raised by selling cheesy wares on TBN infomercials. 7)  Tolerance of other religions is not required.  Lots of churches lately have been real careful      not to offend other religions.   Personally I think that's ridiculous.  You certainly can't stop      someone from believing what they want, but I don't think you have to be nice about it      particularly.    As a Christian I find the Jewish faith to be abhorrant, and I don't mind      saying so.   Christ was the Messiah, and that is that in my mind.  I don't have to hide       that belief or be extra nice to avoid conflict with Jews.  I have to respect their right to      believe what they believe, but I have the right to try to change their minds, and the duty. A-Men! <--non-alcoholic So all this nonsense about "bashing" anytime you say something that another denomination doesn't agree with is just whining. So, if that's bashing then I'm OK with that I guess. I'm OK with bashing as long as it is 100% CLEAR that the practice you're bashing is truly heresy. A lot of 'bashing' crosses the line between denominations. I honestly, genuinely believe that the Body of Christ would be in much better shape if we would set aside some of our differences and come together to worship and fellowship without splitting over some small doctrinal issues. Of course, as stated elsewhere, the definition of 'small' as it relates to the relative importance of various doctrinal disagreements, is where the problem lies. What I see as blatant heresy may be no big deal to you, and vice-versa. What say you?   I say you need to give us a cliff-notes type synopsis of the anglican church, since it's rarely represented here.

_____________________________________________________________

Wow, and for this I was once called a troll in a similar post?  O.K., count me in again!!

Hey Bubbes...Solidarity Rules!  So, here I go....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: To avoid a hijack of anothers thread, I was asked by arowneragain to explain what I believe since apparantly he doesn't like it when I say mean things about other churches. I can do so, and I will at the end of this.   My question is, can you clearly explain what your beliefs are?  In detail?  It's harder than you might think. So, to start it off, here's mine.  Specifically regarding churches and their doctrines. I'm not talking spelling out the catechism, but what you believe about the role of churches and how they operate. I am Anglican.    And I'm pretty sure you've never seen me say anything bad about Christianity, only the self serving perversion of it that some churches choose to practice. And, disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church on 3 or 4 of the 400+ things in their Catechism does not make a basher, although there are a few things that I get pretty upset about.   In general I believe what I think are some reasonable things concerning churches: 1) Priests should have a Theology degree, not just be able to write a check and      get a license.  Many denominations have extremely low educational requirements for      their clergy.  I believe that is a bad idea. Many churches will ordain a minister simply      by paying a fee.  It takes more than good intentions to be a minister. I hate to 'come out swinging' but I TOTALLY disagree with this one. I'd say that - to the best that one man can ever hope to discern the intentions of another - there is a direct correlation between education and worldiness, even within the church. I'm sure we ALL know people who are well-versed in theology, but spiritually cold. I'd MUCH rather have a pastor who understood 1) Jesus died for our sins 2) love one another 3) forgive 4) we're all sinners than to have one who knew intricate detail of history but in their heart had forgotten the most important parts of the Gospel. 2) I believe a church needs to be able to put, in writing, EXACTLY what they believe and any     doctrine they follow, and they need to TEACH that to their congregations.  If you are      going to join a group, you need to understand exactly what you are joining.  I am     constantly amazed at people who claim to be one denomination or another and can't     tell you in detail what that denomination stands for.  That's why these non-denominational     churches make no sense to me.  I also believe that a church needs to be able to print    these things and show them in public.  If you have some doctrines of faith that are     reserved for the "inner circle" then you sink your credibility in my mind.  Scientology     and Mormons seem to have this problem.  They are full of rumors and writings from     former members claiming that there are doctrine that are hid from general membership. Agreed. I genuinely wish that churches in general would publish exactly what they believe, instead of little snippets that seldom see the light of day. Funny, but one of the reasons I defended 'pentecostals' in the other thread you mention, was because of their openness in outlining some basic (but too often overlooked) matters of conduct. 3)  Following that, if you claim to be of a certain denomination, you can't pick and choose which      doctrine you believe, taking some as a matter of fact and ignoring others.  That one is         tossed out a lot too I notice.  "well, my denomination says that but my local preacher      says we don't have to do it that way"  (See #1 for the resolution to that). And this is why I am considered to be a 'member' of a baptist church, and I go there regularly, but never claim to be 'baptist' anymore. I don't agree with the SBC on MANY issues. Having said that, if I let a single issue force me away from the church, I'd have to start my own church. All of us would. 4)  Be able to back up with a reasoned response why you chose the faith you chose.  If you were born into a denomination that's fine, but if you remain there solely because of that you     might not even know what they believe. I agree! MANY people go to churches that diamterically oppose their own beliefs. It's a matter of laziness. OTOH, we're not all called to be deep theologians. 5)  Realize that there are MANY people better versed in theology than you, even if they are       from another faith.  You will see very many times where I quote Pope Pius XII, even    though I do not believe in the whole Pope thing.  This man was one of the best theologians     of all time, Pope or not.   What some preacher from Oklahoma tells me the bible says does     not carry nearly as much substance as do those that spend their entire lives studying nothing else. And what the Bible tells me carries 100000 times more weight than what ANYONE tells me. Why even consider the messenger when judging a message? Go straight to the scripture and see for yourself...... 6)  Churches should not exist for monetary gain.  It is very difficult to argue that ANY of these TV     guys are there for the right reasons, regardless of how good they might sound.  Gene Scott     was a pretty good teacher, and a reasonable theologian.   I don't think he was worth a     damn as a preacher however, since money was a motivator.  Click around on Sunday mornings     sometime to see what this gets you. To the extent that church becomes an enterprise, I agree. However, I'm thrilled to hear of ANY amount of money being spent to spread the Gospel. Even if the money is raised by selling cheesy wares on TBN infomercials. 7)  Tolerance of other religions is not required.  Lots of churches lately have been real careful      not to offend other religions.   Personally I think that's ridiculous.  You certainly can't stop      someone from believing what they want, but I don't think you have to be nice about it      particularly.    As a Christian I find the Jewish faith to be abhorrant, and I don't mind      saying so.   Christ was the Messiah, and that is that in my mind.  I don't have to hide       that belief or be extra nice to avoid conflict with Jews.  I have to respect their right to      believe what they believe, but I have the right to try to change their minds, and the duty. A-Men! <--non-alcoholic So all this nonsense about "bashing" anytime you say something that another denomination doesn't agree with is just whining. So, if that's bashing then I'm OK with that I guess. I'm OK with bashing as long as it is 100% CLEAR that the practice you're bashing is truly heresy. A lot of 'bashing' crosses the line between denominations. I honestly, genuinely believe that the Body of Christ would be in much better shape if we would set aside some of our differences and come together to worship and fellowship without splitting over some small doctrinal issues. Of course, as stated elsewhere, the definition of 'small' as it relates to the relative importance of various doctrinal disagreements, is where the problem lies. What I see as blatant heresy may be no big deal to you, and vice-versa. What say you?   I say you need to give us a cliff-notes type synopsis of the anglican church, since it's rarely represented here. _____________________________________________________________ Wow, and for this I was once called a troll in a similar post?  O.K., count me in again!! Hey Bubbes...Solidarity Rules!  So, here I go....

Huh?


Make some sense, troll!


Seriously, man....you ARE a troll.

You (and twister and OldGuy) have added NOTHING useful to this forum.

For that matter, I've never seen any of you add anything useful ANYWHERE here.

Please, go away - or at least quit trolling.

Now, please, why don't you and oldguy crawl back under the bridge you live under? We could do without the trolling here.

____________________________________________________________

May as well include me in, too.  Never drank, never had to live under a bridge!

Quoted: ... 1) Priests should have a Theology degree, not just be able to write a check and      get a license.  Many denominations have extremely low educational requirements for      their clergy.  I believe that is a bad idea... ...

I must disagree with that part of your statement in the strongest possible manner - some of the ablest, most gifted preachers I have been blessed to hear were far less educated than I, but the Lord used them to His glory nonetheless.

I can go along with just about everything else you said, FWIW.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do WE believe?:


We believe in one God and the trinity of persons in the Godhead; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the revealed word of God and the only rule of faith and practice.

We believe in the fall of Adam and that all men by nature are in a state of wrath and utterly unable to recover themselves by their own freewill and ability into the favor of God.

We believe that God, before the foundation of the world, chose a definite number of the human race in Christ Jesus to salvation and they in particular are saved.

We believe that sinners are justified only through the merits and efficiency of the obedience, death, and resurrection of Christ imputed to them.

We believe all those who are called, quickened, regenerated, and justified are preserved in Christ and kept by the power of God unto salvation and can never fall away and finally be lost.

We believe Jesus Christ, who is the head and lawgiver, has instituted the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper which are to be perpetually observed by the church to the end of the world.

We believe that baptism, and the Lord's supper, and feet washing are ordinances of Jesus Christ and that true believers are the only proper subjects for baptism and that the mode of baptism is immersion in water.

We believe in the resurrection both of the just and the unjust and that the happiness of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked will be eternal.

Quoted: Wow. You learned how to use the 'quote' button. Now, please, why don't you and oldguy crawl back under the bridge you live under? We could do without the trolling here.

We are never going away so you better get used to it.

I know it must be hard on you being limited to posting your diatribes on the Religious Forum but it is for your own good.

Be a good boy and play nice.

Quoted: Quoted: Wow. You learned how to use the 'quote' button. Now, please, why don't you and oldguy crawl back under the bridge you live under? We could do without the trolling here. We are never going away so you better get used to it. I know it must be hard on you being limited to posting your diatribes on the Religious Forum but it is for your own good. Be a good boy and play nice.

Jesus loves you, even when you troll.

It sure is sad that your pride has blinded you to the fact that Jesus died for your sins, too.



If you can't accept that, the least you could do is stop trolling.

Huh?


Make some sense, troll!


Seriously, man....you ARE a troll.

You (and twister and OldGuy) have added NOTHING useful to this forum.

For that matter, I've never seen any of you add anything useful ANYWHERE here.

Please, go away - or at least quit trolling.

_______________________________________________________

By the reference to twister, OldGuy, and ol' scuba_ed, as Jews, you mean we have nothing to offer to this forum?  Not adding anything usefull?

Judaism has already given the majority on this forum a supposed extension, or basis for Christianity.  You mean that our comments as to the texts you refer to have no Jewish meaning...as in, wouldn't you be interested in the original Hebrew text?  It's meaning?

Quoted: In general I believe what I think are some reasonable things concerning churches: 1) Priests should have a Theology degree, not just be able to write a check and      get a license.  Many denominations have extremely low educational requirements for      their clergy.  I believe that is a bad idea. Many churches will ordain a minister simply      by paying a fee.  It takes more than good intentions to be a minister.

I wholeheartedly agree. Our denomination, for instance, has a rigorous process by which someone obtains licensure. This is not necessarily a degree, but it IS a process by which the person being considered is to study and be tested on his knowledge and application of scripture.

2) I believe a church needs to be able to put, in writing, EXACTLY what they believe and any     doctrine they follow, and they need to TEACH that to their congregations.  If you are      going to join a group, you need to understand exactly what you are joining.  I am     constantly amazed at people who claim to be one denomination or another and can't     tell you in detail what that denomination stands for.  That's why these non-denominational     churches make no sense to me.  I also believe that a church needs to be able to print    these things and show them in public.

I agree. This is why we have a Declaration of Faith. We teach according to the principles in that Declaration (which is, of course, based on the Bible) constantly.

3)  Following that, if you claim to be of a certain denomination, you can't pick and choose which      doctrine you believe, taking some as a matter of fact and ignoring others.  That one is         tossed out a lot too I notice.  "well, my denomination says that but my local preacher      says we don't have to do it that way"  (See #1 for the resolution to that).

Agreed. I became a member of my church because I believe wholely in our doctrine and the authority of our teachings.

4)  Be able to back up with a reasoned response why you chose the faith you chose.  If you were     born into a denomination that's fine, but if you remain there solely because of that you     might not even know what they believe.

Agreed. I can't fathom belonging to a church where I have no idea what they believe. This is one of the concerns I have about some of the television preachers today, because they don't seem to know exactly what they believe.

5)  Realize that there are MANY people better versed in theology than you, even if they are       from another faith.  You will see very many times where I quote Pope Pius XII, even    though I do not believe in the whole Pope thing.  This man was one of the best theologians     of all time, Pope or not.   What some preacher from Oklahoma tells me the bible says does     not carry nearly as much substance as do those that spend their entire lives studying nothing else.

Except when that preacher from Oklahoma is a studied and learned man who is as familiar with the original languages of the Bible as he is with English, and can produce a genuine work of exegis that stands up to rigorous scrutiny.

6)  Churches should not exist for monetary gain.  It is very difficult to argue that ANY of these TV     guys are there for the right reasons, regardless of how good they might sound.  Gene Scott     was a pretty good teacher, and a reasonable theologian.   I don't think he was worth a     damn as a preacher however, since money was a motivator.  Click around on Sunday mornings     sometime to see what this gets you.

Poverty is not piety, but serving mamon is still serving mamon.

7)  Tolerance of other religions is not required.  Lots of churches lately have been real careful      not to offend other religions.   Personally I think that's ridiculous.  You certainly can't stop      someone from believing what they want, but I don't think you have to be nice about it      particularly.    As a Christian I find the Jewish faith to be abhorrant, and I don't mind      saying so.   Christ was the Messiah, and that is that in my mind.  I don't have to hide       that belief or be extra nice to avoid conflict with Jews.  I have to respect their right to      believe what they believe, but I have the right to try to change their minds, and the duty.

There are many things I disagree with in other faiths. But I can disagree with them without being a jerk about it.

Quoted: Huh? Make some sense, troll! Seriously, man....you ARE a troll. You (and twister and OldGuy) have added NOTHING useful to this forum. For that matter, I've never seen any of you add anything useful ANYWHERE here. Please, go away - or at least quit trolling. _______________________________________________________ By the reference to twister, OldGuy, and ol' scuba_ed, as Jews, you mean we have nothing to offer to this forum?  Not adding anything usefull? Judaism has already given the majority on this forum a supposed extension, or basis for Christianity.  You mean that our comments as to the texts you refer to have no Jewish meaning...as in, wouldn't you be interested in the original Hebrew text?  It's meaning?

I owe everything I have to one Jew. His name is Jesus.


You, twister, and oldguy are nothing but trolls.



In theory, a moderator is supposed to deal with trolls within this forum, but they're not doing their job currently, and because of it, a perfectly good thread has been ruined.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wow. You learned how to use the 'quote' button. Now, please, why don't you and oldguy crawl back under the bridge you live under? We could do without the trolling here. We are never going away so you better get used to it. I know it must be hard on you being limited to posting your diatribes on the Religious Forum but it is for your own good. Be a good boy and play nice. Jesus loves you, even when you troll. It sure is sad that your pride has blinded you to the fact that Jesus died for your sins, too. If you can't accept that, the least you could do is stop trolling.

I am sure that if I come remotely close to trolling VAgunnut will handle it, not you. This is the Religion Forum not the Christian Forum so get over it.

As for Jesus, he is a figment of your imagination and i have no use for him, but feel free to indulge yourself.

You have a blessed day

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wow. You learned how to use the 'quote' button. Now, please, why don't you and oldguy crawl back under the bridge you live under? We could do without the trolling here. We are never going away so you better get used to it. I know it must be hard on you being limited to posting your diatribes on the Religious Forum but it is for your own good. Be a good boy and play nice. Jesus loves you, even when you troll. It sure is sad that your pride has blinded you to the fact that Jesus died for your sins, too. If you can't accept that, the least you could do is stop trolling. I am sure that if I come remotely close to trolling VAgunnut will handle it, not you. This is the Religion Forum not the Christian Forum so get over it. As for Jesus, he is a figment of your imagination and i have no use for him, but feel free to indulge yourself. You have a blessed day I am not blind just because I have no use for your Jesus. I did n

You have went beyond 'remotely close' and into clear-cut, outright trolling.

VA-gunnut has thus far been 100% ineffective in dealing with it.

I have nothing to 'get over'. I don't expect - or even want - a Christian-only forum.

I do, however, expect trolls to be dealt with, and thus far, you have not been delat with.

It is very disappointing.




Oh...

And as for Jesus, he is the Messiah, and you would recognize Him as such were it not for your pride, vanity, and hard-heartedness.


But that's OK by me.....one day, every knee will bow, every tongue will confess.

Jesus loves you, even when you troll.

It sure is sad that your pride has blinded you to the fact that Jesus died for your sins, too.

__________________________________________________

That whole topic of a need for Jews to return to animal sacrifice was discussed in another thread.  Jews no longer believe that animal or food from the earth was necessary to commune with G-d; at the time, it was simply part of the sacrificial cult.  Never, ever, did we contemplate the sacrifice of a human being !!

~p.s.--The story of Abraham was meant to us as a teaching of this.

Quoted: Quoted: Huh? Make some sense, troll! Seriously, man....you ARE a troll. You (and twister and OldGuy) have added NOTHING useful to this forum. For that matter, I've never seen any of you add anything useful ANYWHERE here. Please, go away - or at least quit trolling. _______________________________________________________ By the reference to twister, OldGuy, and ol' scuba_ed, as Jews, you mean we have nothing to offer to this forum?  Not adding anything usefull? Judaism has already given the majority on this forum a supposed extension, or basis for Christianity.  You mean that our comments as to the texts you refer to have no Jewish meaning...as in, wouldn't you be interested in the original Hebrew text?  It's meaning? I owe everything I have to one Jew. His name is Jesus. You, twister, and oldguy are nothing but trolls. In theory, a moderator is supposed to deal with trolls within this forum, but they're not doing their job currently, and because of it, a perfectly good thread has been ruined.

The Great and Powerful ARowner has spoken!

Give it a rest already and quit the name calling will you. Why is it that Christians seem predisposed to name calling when some one disagrees with them or is of a different faith.

Your just Christians not the Borg.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Huh? Make some sense, troll! Seriously, man....you ARE a troll. You (and twister and OldGuy) have added NOTHING useful to this forum. For that matter, I've never seen any of you add anything useful ANYWHERE here. Please, go away - or at least quit trolling. _______________________________________________________ By the reference to twister, OldGuy, and ol' scuba_ed, as Jews, you mean we have nothing to offer to this forum?  Not adding anything usefull? Judaism has already given the majority on this forum a supposed extension, or basis for Christianity.  You mean that our comments as to the texts you refer to have no Jewish meaning...as in, wouldn't you be interested in the original Hebrew text?  It's meaning? I owe everything I have to one Jew. His name is Jesus. You, twister, and oldguy are nothing but trolls. In theory, a moderator is supposed to deal with trolls within this forum, but they're not doing their job currently, and because of it, a perfectly good thread has been ruined. The Great and Powerful ARowner has spoken! Give it a rest already and quit the name calling will you. Why is it that Christians seem predisposed to name calling when some one disagrees with them or is of a different faith. Your just Christians not the Borg.

Tell you what.....you quit being a troll, and I'll quit calling you a troll?

Deal?

I'm not calling you names - I'm calling you what you are.

by arowneragain:

It sure is sad that your pride has blinded you to the fact that Jesus died for your sins, too.

__________________________________________________________

Actually, calling us names would be a far and most fairer term than your own phraseology ellicits.  By your statement above--and I'm not needlessly criticizing, that was how you were taught of Jews--demonstrates the slippery-slope of anti-semitism.

So many Jews have been murdered by that supposed sin of ours.

Kindly reflect, yourself, upon your words and how they may have effect upon others, or, in your terms, WWJD?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Huh? Make some sense, troll! Seriously, man....you ARE a troll. You (and twister and OldGuy) have added NOTHING useful to this forum. For that matter, I've never seen any of you add anything useful ANYWHERE here. Please, go away - or at least quit trolling. _______________________________________________________ By the reference to twister, OldGuy, and ol' scuba_ed, as Jews, you mean we have nothing to offer to this forum?  Not adding anything usefull? Judaism has already given the majority on this forum a supposed extension, or basis for Christianity.  You mean that our comments as to the texts you refer to have no Jewish meaning...as in, wouldn't you be interested in the original Hebrew text?  It's meaning? I owe everything I have to one Jew. His name is Jesus. You, twister, and oldguy are nothing but trolls. In theory, a moderator is supposed to deal with trolls within this forum, but they're not doing their job currently, and because of it, a perfectly good thread has been ruined. The Great and Powerful ARowner has spoken! Give it a rest already and quit the name calling will you. Why is it that Christians seem predisposed to name calling when some one disagrees with them or is of a different faith. Your just Christians not the Borg. Tell you what.....you quit being a troll, and I'll quit calling you a troll? Deal? I'm not calling you names - I'm calling you what you are.

You still do not get it do you? You are the kind of Christian that makes other Christians wish that you would shut up.

Now if you do not behave yourself I know a Chassidic Rabbi with TEN sons who are also Rabbis and I will buy them all memberships and point them to the Religion Forum.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Huh? Make some sense, troll! Seriously, man....you ARE a troll. You (and twister and OldGuy) have added NOTHING useful to this forum. For that matter, I've never seen any of you add anything useful ANYWHERE here. Please, go away - or at least quit trolling. _______________________________________________________ By the reference to twister, OldGuy, and ol' scuba_ed, as Jews, you mean we have nothing to offer to this forum?  Not adding anything usefull? Judaism has already given the majority on this forum a supposed extension, or basis for Christianity.  You mean that our comments as to the texts you refer to have no Jewish meaning...as in, wouldn't you be interested in the original Hebrew text?  It's meaning? I owe everything I have to one Jew. His name is Jesus. You, twister, and oldguy are nothing but trolls. In theory, a moderator is supposed to deal with trolls within this forum, but they're not doing their job currently, and because of it, a perfectly good thread has been ruined. The Great and Powerful ARowner has spoken! Give it a rest already and quit the name calling will you. Why is it that Christians seem predisposed to name calling when some one disagrees with them or is of a different faith. Your just Christians not the Borg. Tell you what.....you quit being a troll, and I'll quit calling you a troll? Deal? I'm not calling you names - I'm calling you what you are. You still do not get it do you? You are the kind of Christian that makes other Christians wish that you would shut up. Now if you do not behave yourself I know a Chassidic Rabbi with TEN sons who are also Rabbis and I will buy them all memberships and point them to the Religious Forum.

______________________________________________________________

Might I also suggest of possibly elliciting some of the views of JPFO?

Quoted: I say you need to give us a cliff-notes type synopsis of the anglican church, since it's rarely represented here.

Hell I'm afraid to say anything else after the sh*tstorm this caused.  I didn't figure anyone would
read it but you and me

Fun to watch the bloodletting somewhat, but there are some seriously dumb people around here,
I'm glad you and others are calling them out.

These things always bring out the best and worst in people, it's interesting to see the ones that
can disagree but argue their positions and the ones that just roll over in a seizure.

Quoted: Quoted: I say you need to give us a cliff-notes type synopsis of the anglican church, since it's rarely represented here. Hell I'm afraid to say anything else after the sh*tstorm this caused.  I didn't figure anyone would read it but you and me Fun to watch the bloodletting somewhat, but there are some seriously dumb people around here, I'm glad you and others are calling them out. These things always bring out the best and worst in people, it's interesting to see the ones that can disagree but argue their positions and the ones that just roll over in a seizure.

Sig-- What are your thoughts about the Anglican church's (the American churches....some of them anyway...) actions vis a vis homosexual bishops?

Disrupting the forum.