Christianity, is it

[SkyRock]

Ok SkyRock, you asked for it and here it is.  This link is from the official Greek Orthodox Church website.  If you think this link is "bunk" then I can be of no more assistance.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8089.asp

There's a lot of reading there, but here are some of the highlights:

"The pages that follow will explore a view of non-Chnistian religions from an Orthodox Christian perspective. This view holds firmly to the centrality of Christ, a doctrine which is not negotiable, yet acknowledges that salvation can be found outside Christianity."

"Orthodox emphasis on the creation of the human person in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26) means that the personhood of each human being is indelibly imprinted with God's image. And it follows that, carrying God's image, each person has access to revelation and salvation.[7] God is ever present - at all times, in all places and in all things. He did not create man to abandon him but to guide him to redemption, to perfection. God's purpose is the salvation and glorification of man."

"It cannot be assumed that salvation is denied non-Christians living in true piety and according to natural law by the God who "is love" -1 John 4:8-, In his justice and mercy God will judge them worthy even though they are outside the true Church."



So, there you have it...  Can you say pwned, or are you going to claim a bunk link again?

Post a quote where the christian doctrine states that a man who denies God's existence does not burn in hell.  It is really that simple.

[Hangtime]

Ah, the cynical agnostic dismisses the evidence with meandering thoughts.

What evidence?

No cat?

[Xargos]

good dodge. if you are going to make connections like that, do it in a relevant language.

The Hebrews were wise enough to learn the language of the land they were living in.  They had more influence in the past then people are willing to give them credit for.

[SkyRock]

Well I got as far as 7 1/2 min of part 1.  They should of used fact check.com. The date Dec. 25th they sayas Jesus birth and the 3 stars called 3 kings with the star of the east? The 25th date is a catholic invention(and I can explain that to be specific). The mention of 3 kings is also absent from the bible but wise men from the east is mentioned, and far as the star of the east thats irrelevant. Broad generalities are prolific so far but of this spirit of the age(zietgeist). I give it another shot to see what there talking about

yeah, the 25th is in there to relate christianity to many other religions that practice the same general time frame, the movie tries to hard to target recent christian traditions in some parts.  It's a good view though, except for I don't like the "olbermanesque" qualities of some parts.

[E25280]

So.. rather than answering the Infant Damnation question, you sidestep and present a branch of Christianity that does not hold that belief. 'They have strayed from the 'Truth''. Then when challenged on proving that 'orthodoxy' is the one True Faith, you dodge again, toss the Pentecosts in front of the bus and apply first aid after the wreck with 'Their claim is much more reasonable than most'.

LOL!

As always, discussing religion with religionists is like searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there.

Good show tho, I thank you for playing; and you folks at home, stay tuned for the next episode of 'who's god is god, the christian chronicles'.

 

Actually, he did answer the question:  He believes Infant Damnation is a construct of the Catholic Church and not Biblically based.  So perhaps he should turn it on you -- why do you believe Infant Damnation is a central tenant of those who consider the Bible to be truth?  Because a Catholic told you so?  Then make the Catholic prove that Infant Damnation is scripturally based.

That is the problem with trying to argue about "Christianity" in a very general sense vs. debating whether the Catholics or Baptists or <insert whoever here> is actually basing their teachings on the Bible.  When you bring up something that is central to Catholics, of course an Orthodox or Protestant will have trouble defending it because it is not necessarily part of Orthodox or Protestant teachings.

Why don't I just ask you why Republicans believe in Abortion on Demand for Everyone.  I would bet you would have a tough time with that one, wouldn't you -- because they don't believe in that.

The best any of them can do is point to a verse in the Bible.  But then, I suspect you and those like you would laugh at them for following an old moldy book in the first place, right?

[SkyRock]

Better yet, type what the gist of that is...

bingo, hell I'm not a religous scholar, I need explanations.  hee hee

[SkyRock]

Well watched the rest, and if their finale blow against Christianity is that Jesus never lived as a historical person. Apart from biblical sources, you might for yourself look into Tacitus, Pliny the Younger or even Celsus. Also Flavius Josephus a Jewish historian born 37Anno Domini or Common Era wrote of the person of Jesus. If you can find an impartial credible source

yeah, I just posted on your first post, but it's as close to an explanation as many care to delve into.  Sorry.

[SkyRock]

good dodge. if you are going to make connections like that, do it in a relevant language.

I didn't, Xargos did, but I'd like to see you two discuss it!   

[JAGED]

So, we go from this request:

If you really want to "pwn" me, then name a christian religion who does not believe a person will go to hell if he does not get saved by christ.

which I satisfied, to this one:

Post a quote where the christian doctrine states that a man who denies God's existence does not burn in hell.  It is really that simple.

It's not enough to name a Christian religion, now you want a Christrian doctrine.
You can't keep redefining your criteria.  I answered your first question and you can't refute it so you change the criteria.

Game over!

P.S. And you never did provide any links of your own...

[SkyRock]

Actually, he did answer the question:  He believes Infant Damnation is a construct of the Catholic Church and not Biblically based.  So perhaps he should turn it on you -- why do you believe Infant Damnation is a central tenant of those who consider the Bible to be truth?  Because a Catholic told you so?  Then make the Catholic prove that Infant Damnation is scripturally based.

That is the problem with trying to argue about "Christianity" in a very general sense vs. debating whether the Catholics or Baptists or <insert whoever here> is actually basing their teachings on the Bible.  When you bring up something that is central to Catholics, of course an Orthodox or Protestant will have trouble defending it because it is not necessarily part of Orthodox or Protestant teachings.

Why don't I just ask you why Republicans believe in Abortion on Demand for Everyone.  I would bet you would have a tough time with that one, wouldn't you -- because they don't believe in that.

The best any of them can do is point to a verse in the Bible.  But then, I suspect you and those like you would laugh at them for following an old moldy book in the first place, right?

E25, I don't normally participate in the religious threads in here, but since I posted it, I am going to say, I have enjoyed/learned, more in this thread than most I come across.  Thanks gentlemen, for the studies.  Continue!

[SkyRock]

So, we go from this request:

which I satisfied, to this one:

It's not enough to name a Christian religion, now you want a Christrian doctrine.
You can't keep redefining your criteria.  I answered your first question and you can't refute it so you change the criteria.

Game over!

What a waste you're turning out to be, part of debating is teaching, you're more concerned in the celebrating of the victory rather than the satisfaction of not only beating your opponent but enlightening him.  "Game over" and "Pwnt" just don't seem to fit in here, but alas, if you want to be an arsehat, it's your perogative.....oooh, theres a related word. 

Besides, I read what you wrote, but I haven't studied it enough to know you're right, but just for friks sake, please state that Orthodox do not believe you go to hell if you deny God exists.....just for the record! 

[Xargos]

The only ones who will be going to Hell are those who learned the truth then turned their backs on it.  I seriously doubt there are many people throughout history that really ever learned the truth.

[Hangtime]

Jaged, I thought we were talking about Christianity... and who's christian god is THE christian god.. if there is a 'christian 'god..

if so...

Catholic 1,050,000,000 Orthodox/Eastern Christian 240,000,000 African indigenous sects (AICs) 110,000,000 Pentecostal 105,000,000 Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United 75,000,000 Anglican 73,000,000 Baptist 70,000,000 Methodist 70,000,000 Lutheran 64,000,000 Jehovah's Witnesses 14,800,000 Adventist 12,000,000 Latter Day Saints 12,500,000 Apostolic/New Apostolic 10,000,000 Stone-Campbell ("Restoration Movement") 5,400,000 New Thought (Unity, Christian Science, etc.) 1,500,000 Brethren (incl. Plymouth) 1,500,000 Mennonite 1,250,000 Friends (Quakers) 300,000

Looks to me like the Catholics have it. By definition of numbers... they must be the one TRUE faith. I mean, a billion 'n a half of 'em can't be wrong. right?

Your pleas for orthodoxy have been rejected by the pope.

On to infant damnation... best explanation I ever heard:

There is an old, old story about a theologian who was asked to reconcile the Doctrine of Divine Mercy with the doctrine of infant damnation. 'The Almighty,' he explained, 'finds it necessary to do things in His official and public capacity which in His private and personal capacity He deplores.

*sigh*

Now, back to the threads topic question... who's got the cat?

[Baitman]

The Biblical doctrine is that mankind is sinful at conception. That is a very brief statement drawn from the original command given to Adam. He failed and as mankinds first parent and representative, we as his prodigy inherited a fallen state as it is sometimes called. It deals with the biblical teaching of one's nature or inclinations toward namely sin. It speaks to man's inability to no longer worship or obey or whatever else you want to call it as we should regardless of one's age. 

Some interpet this to believe that man is born pure and then turned (as Adam) sinfull. Some look at this as being story of a boy becoming a man. Children are pure, whereas man has partaken of the forbidden fruit. Also peoples of diminished mental capacity are considered children.

[Elfie]

That's only one interpretation.  Another holds that mankind has inheritied only the consequences of Adams failure, namely mortality and death.

The Biblical doctrine is that mankind is sinful at conception. That is a very brief statement drawn from the original command given to Adam. He failed and as mankinds first parent and representative, we as his prodigy inherited a fallen state as it is sometimes called. It deals with the biblical teaching of one's nature or inclinations toward namely sin. It speaks to man's inability to no longer worship or obey or whatever else you want to call it as we should regardless of one's age.

Actually, it's all of this. We inherited Adam and Eve's sinful nature and along with the sinful nature came mortality and spiritual death. Each of us is born with a sinful nature. Children display this sinful nature at a very early age. Ever hear the term *terrible twos*? It's a term that refers to a child's rebellious behavior that generally happens around the age of two. The child is pushing his/her limits to see just what he/she can/cannot get away with. Children will begin lying w/o someone teaching them what a lie is, they will attempt to hide their wrong doing even before they learn that they will get in trouble for specific behaviors. This is evidence of our sinful nature.

I'll give an example of a child hiding his wrong doing even before he learns that he will get in trouble.

When my son was 2 yrs old, that Christmas my (ex)wife had wrapped a crap load of presents and then gone to bed. My son woke up before us and proceeded to open presents until he found one he liked. He tried to hide the wrapping paper by shoving it under/behind furniture and under the area rug. (Like we weren't going to notice the bulges in the rug or see the other presents that had been opened.  ) Even though this situation had never come up for him previously, he understood that what he was doing was wrong. The proof in that is that he tried to hide the evidence of his actions.