Laundry list for Protestants

[Asinner]

Hi Asinner

In the Hebrew language of the Bible, the word translated is giants. There have been different ways in which to say what this word means but most say it means a "feller", an old English word that connotes a bully or a tyrant as well as a very large being. Some say it means "fallen ones", of which I disagree.

It's used in the Genesis 6:4 verse where it describes a certain offspring of human women and the sons of God, which I believe were angelic beings.

LOL, nothing like opening up a controversial theology in the midst of this kind of thread.

Thanks.

I thought it sounded familiar. I will go with the "feller" definition, since the others don't suit you very well!

God Bless

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Hi Asinner

In the Hebrew language of the Bible, the word translated is giants. There have been different ways in which to say what this word means but most say it means a "feller", an old English word that connotes a bully or a tyrant as well as a very large being. Some say it means "fallen ones", of which I disagree.

It's used in the Genesis 6:4 verse where it describes a certain offspring from human women and the sons of God, which I believe were angelic beings.

LOL, nothing like opening up a controversial theology in the midst of this kind of thread.

*Hmmm... OrthodoxyUSA adds that to the laundry list*

ROFL!

Forgive me....

 

[nephilimiyr]

Just to let you both know, Orthodoxyusa and Asinner, I don't concern myself anymore with that theology. I still believe in the basics of it but have come to realize that after the basics there is just too much speculation one has to go through. So even though I still believe in it, I don't talk about it nor read about it anymore. I will answer questions about my loggin name though.

As for adding that to the laundry list? I probably had more heated debates about that theology with other Protestants than Catholics or Orthodoxy, it always interested me that not many of you seemed too interested in it at all...oh well...

 

[WarriorAngel]

I pretty much agree with you, I don't mind disscussing theology, in fact that is why I'm here at GT. I also agree with Orthodoxyusa in that if you want to discuss all the Protestant beliefs it shouldn't be done in one thread.

And I might add, maybe I don't have as thick of skin as the most of you do but I have found some of your fellow Catholics to be most ungraceous and unkind. I could use a few other choice adjectives but I wont break the rules.

Ahhh, I know how you feel. But break down some points...take a few and give what you feel it means.
I suppose the differences of the different sects all confuse me, so what is YOUR POV?

If you need, go to the OP or another one, and show us how you conclude sola scriptura into your doctrine.

Example; TULIP....was mentioned above, and now we await how scripture concludes it.

Now you may say that you have had to deal with the same thing here but by Protestants and I will agree that there are some Protestant posters who fit that discription also but you engage in debate with them by your own choice, I also have a choice and say since I don't have to, I will not.

Honestly I don't always. I sometimes ignore rudeness. And hope it quits.

When I come to a Christian message board I feel everyone should be extending a certain amount of respect, grace, love and kindness towards whomever they are talking to no matter whether they agree with each other or not. When this doesn't take place I reserve the right to leave the discussion and not partake of the rudeness, childishness, and lack of love or kindness. See I don't believe it's the right thing to do to start acting like others do when I know they are conducting themselves in less than a Christian manner. My weakness is that I sometimes do tend to do that and that's why I can't stick around in such threads.

This is why I wish threads could stick to points and not personal jabs......and admittedly I had to learn to overlook rude remarks so I would not engage myself in the debate that led no where fast. But leading me to trouble.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Ahhh, I know how you feel. But break down some points...take a few and give what you feel it means.
I suppose the differences of the different sects all confuse me, so what is YOUR POV?

If you need, go to the OP or another one, and show us how you conclude sola scriptura into your doctrine.

Example; TULIP....was mentioned above, and now we await how scripture concludes it.



Honestly I don't always. I sometimes ignore rudeness. And hope it quits.



This is why I wish threads could stick to points and not personal jabs......and admittedly I had to learn to overlook rude remarks so I would not engage myself in the debate that led no where fast. But leading me to trouble.



See, but this is of your opinion.
Fact is, it is a thread. Fact is not whether he did it in a mean spirited way.
AND if you are concerned about Apostolic Succession...which could take me a long while to explain, but would rather you look online to the Popes successors..
and possibly if you can, get a hold of copies of the original texts or so from ancient history from Ireneaus' Peter's Chairs line, and then from other writers who kept track of such thing.
It is quite difficult to state it without the parchments, but much easier to see for yourself.
Would seeing be believing I wonder?



Again Neph, you cannot state you hate something, then do it. Pardon, but please try not to use conjecture of what YOU FEEL he is doing, yet instead just follow the course of action, and do not allow feelings to follow you.



If you wish to convey your teachings, you may also make a thread if you wish to avoid hard feelings you may have assumed thru debating my Catholic brother.

No one does force another to make a comment on any thread.

Nor do they force us to have feelings....we always have control. Although I completely understand frustration.

I made a thread b4 I saw your reply, about Apostolic Tradition and such.

THIS is why for a Catholic, we do not use sola scriptura, and never have.
It just didnt exist [the Bible as a whole] until 400 years later.

Well, leaving that for another thread.

Thank you WarriorAngel, you have proven to me to be a wise angel indeed. You're right about me and my useing conjecture and all and will take what you said to heart.

I've never been very good at starting threads, I don't know why. I do better at just joining in on conversations, not starting them.

 

[JCrawf]

I'm quite happy to go through these things, but might I suggest a better approach to that list?

[General Protestant Beliefs]
1. Why do Protestants believe in Sola Fide?
2. Why do Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura?
3. How do Protestants maintain that they have any sort of unity, while their beliefs often differ?

Realistically, outside of these 3 things the rest of the things on the list are:
a) asking us to comment on your beliefs, not ours
b) Specific beliefs that aren't common to all and might be better addressed in threads on "what Calvinists believe" or "what (insert other group here) believe"
c) Potshots, unrelated to any beliefs

Nevertheless, if you wanted to keep them they might be better addressed in the following subcategories:

[Catholic beliefs]*
Why don't Protestants accept the RCC understanding of:
4. Veneration of Saints
5. Apostolic Succesion
6. Tradition

[Other beliefs - for those that hold them]
Why do you believe:
7. OSAS
8. TULIP
9. The Lord's Supper is symbolic
10. Baptism is unecessary

Pretty well sums up the list so far.

As I've stated from the outset, I think you're trying to cover too much here, but a clear and fair presentation of the list might help.

The whole poinst of this thread is to (hopefully) bring a certain perspective for Protestants on how this type of rhetoric is not very productive in regards to discussing issues. Your point is valid, and one that many of us Catholics and Orthodox Christians have by trying to state for quite some time - to make a laundry list of theology and beliefs to cover in one thread is a ridiculous way to discuss beliefs. But yet many protestants have no qualms asking questions of Catholics and the Orthodoxy in this manner.

As I've also stated I'm more than happy to make a biblical and reasoned defense for those beliefs I hold, but I'm not going to even bother playing the game at all if it's not played respectfully.

That's fine is you want to defend your faith in a reasoned manner. I would hope that you do. But respect is earned. You might have salvation assured by Christ, but respect among fellow men (other than Protestants)? How should I know. But if you can show me respect, then you have earned respect from me. But the point of this thread has been noted. If you want to take up the challenge, that is your perogative.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[racer]

JCrawf,

Noting that certain protestants say certain negative things about your faith does not in turn give you the right to "slander" protestants as a whole. You have made certain comments to me in retaliation for what has been done or said to you or about your faith by others. I pointed out to you that I had not done these things and your response was, "whatever."

We can (all of us) sit here all day long and bemoan how biased the forums are against us, but what do we solve. If some people weren't so thin skinned and hitting those "report" buttons everytime the perceived an insult, the present situation would not be as it is at CF. As Christians we should have much tougher hide that we apparently do.

But hey, I'll be a martyr

Oh, BTW, the "persecution/martyr complex" is really out of date.

for fairness on GT. Go ahead those of you who fear being questioned about your faith and having fairness on GT, press the button and prove me right.

There is a major difference between questioning someone about their faith and outright calling them atheists because they disagree with a aspect of your faith.

 

[JCrawf]

Noting that certain protestants say certain negative things about your faith does not in turn give you the right to "slander" protestants as a whole.

I didn't slander protestants as a whole - at least no more than any Protestant on here has slandered Catholics as a whole.

You have made certain comments to me in retaliation for what has been done or said to you or about your faith by others. I pointed out to you that I had not done these things and your response was, "whatever."

My responses were, "so what?" Just because you personally haven't done what another Protestant has done does not mean that a person cannot comment about it. You are your own individual, right? And you are of a different belief than what was stated. Fine. But there are those who are Protestant with those particular beliefs. It's not as a whole, but it is out there. And since you can't speak for them, so what? The belief is still out there, and it is believed by those claiming to be Protestant.

We can (all of us) sit here all day long and bemoan how biased the forums are against us, but what do we solve. If some people weren't so thin skinned and hitting those "report" buttons everytime the perceived an insult, the present situation would not be as it is at CF. As Christians we should have much tougher hide that we apparently do.

I'd like to honestly and openly discuss the issues. But every time, there is a stipulation made. So, the challenge in this thread was to show how pointless such stipulations are. Fine, Protestants don't agree about Tradition. At least let those who do believe in it speak about how they come to beliefe without throwing out mundane comments like: where's that in Scripture. Many of the Protestant beliefs were not completely formulated only within the context of Scripture; including even Sola Scriptura.

Oh, BTW, the "persecution/martyr complex" is really out of date.

It worked 2000 years ago and I'm sticking to it.

There is a major difference between questioning someone about their faith and outright calling them atheists because they disagree with a aspect of your faith.

I wasn't qeustioning then. Just stating a few things. Not much different that Protestants that outright call Catholics pagans because they disagree with an aspect of the Catholic faith.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[JCrawf]

There is a major difference between questioning someone about their faith and outright calling them atheists because they disagree with a aspect of your faith.

BTW, for the record, it was St. Augustine that said they were unbelievers because they didn't believe in the true presence in the Eucharist. St. Augustine in the writing that you posted takes for granted that all Christians know that he means the Eucharist in the fuller context. Plus, if a person is denying the true presence, that isn't having faith, that is lacking faith - thus the reason that they are consider unbelievers, being that they do not believe. What is atheism? It is specifically to not belive in God, but it can also be attributed to not believing a particular theology. Thus, I am atheistic when it come to not believing in sola scriptura. Am I godless for not believing in Sola Scriptura? I'm sure some Protestants out there would contend that to be true.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[PaulAckermann]

Actually - I know a LOT more Catholics than I do Protestants and I'd have to say that in my experience the average Protestant has a much better understanding of what they believe and a greater conviction about their beliefs than the average Catholic does. In fact, I get paid by Catholics to teach Catholics what Catholics believe and I'm Protestant. In my day to day life I interact with about 1000+ Catholics, specifically to discuss religion. Despite the fact I know relatively little about Catholicism, I know more about and have more conviction towards many Catholic beliefs than any Catholic I personally know. Truth is - the bulk of our beliefs are common. It's just that not all Protestants all agree on all the little details of our collective beliefs. I'm not sayin this makes Protestants any better or worse, just that your point doesn't seem particularly relevant when I observe it in my world.

I suspect that you are comparing the best of Protestantism with the worst of Catholicsm, which is an unfair comparison. Many times the comparison is with Catholics in general, in which most of them are admittedly very lukewarm and ignorant of their faith, to Protestant of a particular denomination or denominations. That is a inaccurate comparison.

If you going to compare all of Catholicsm, then you should compare with all of Protestantism - the good and the bad. So if you compare all Catholicsm to all of Protestantism (that means all the Episocopaleans, the Untited Methodists, The United Church of Christ, the Unitarians, and even those who are on the fringe of Protestantism - Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormon, Scientologists, etc), you will see that the comparison is pretty much even.

If you want to compare the best with the best, then compare the best of Catholicsm to the best of Protestantism. For instance, compare Catholics who go to daily Mass with those Protestants go to church daily (are there any Protestants who go to Church daily?). Or compare Catholics who attend Opus Dei Evenings of Recollections with those Protestant who attend mid-week Bible studies. If you compare the best to the best, Catholicsm would come out favorable. I have went to both Protestant Bible Studies and to Opus Dei, and I find more depth in those who go to Opus Dei.

 

[JCrawf]

Good point Paul. So what would your question for Protestants be? I can think of one from reading your post:

Why do Protestants compare what could be considered the "not the best" of Catholicism (un- or poorly catechised, backsliders, etc.) to the "best" of Protestantism (faithful, church-going or pius and "true believers" that are claimed to be well-learned in the Bible, etc.)?

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[racer]

BTW, for the record, it was St. Augustine that said they were unbelievers because they didn't believe in the true presence in the Eucharist. St

No he didn't. I've already provided evidence. No matter how you try to contort it, it's on the boards for all to see.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I suspect that you are comparing the best of Protestantism with the worst of Catholicsm, which is an unfair comparison. Many times the comparison is with Catholics in general, in which most of them are admittedly very lukewarm and ignorant of their faith, to Protestant of a particular denomination or denominations. That is a inaccurate comparison.

If you going to compare all of Catholicsm, then you should compare with all of Protestantism - the good and the bad. So if you compare all Catholicsm to all of Protestantism (that means all the Episocopaleans, the Untited Methodists, The United Church of Christ, the Unitarians, and even those who are on the fringe of Protestantism - Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormon, Scientologists, etc), you will see that the comparison is pretty much even.

If you want to compare the best with the best, then compare the best of Catholicsm to the best of Protestantism. For instance, compare Catholics who go to daily Mass with those Protestants go to church daily (are there any Protestants who go to Church daily?). Or compare Catholics who attend Opus Dei Evenings of Recollections with those Protestant who attend mid-week Bible studies. If you compare the best to the best, Catholicsm would come out favorable. I have went to both Protestant Bible Studies and to Opus Dei, and I find more depth in those who go to Opus Dei.

So the best of the best are those with inflated church attendance records? Yikes.

 

[JCrawf]

No he didn't. I've already provided evidence. No matter how you try to contort it, it's on the boards for all to see.

You didn't provide evidence at all - just your personal interpretation, which counts for nothing, at least factual. All you took was what you considered a prooftext, which actually says contrary to what you want it to say. It is a fact that St. Augustine believed in the true presence. Your distortions are nothing more than that - distortions.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[JCrawf]

BTW, so the thread doesn't get hijacked by a subject that has nothing to do with the OP, please review the OP: Post 1

I'm sure there are more questions to add to the list.

Pax Vobiscum,

John

 

[Uphill Battle]

BTW, so the thread doesn't get hijacked by a subject that has nothing to do with the OP, please review the OP: Post 1

I'm sure there are more questions to add to the list.

Pax Vobiscum,

John

Fine. Pick ONE issue that Cat/Ortho has an issue with, and I can tell you why I believe what I do about it. I cannot however, speak for every protestant.

 

[JCrawf]

Fine. Pick ONE issue that Cat/Ortho has an issue with, and I can tell you why I believe what I do about it. I cannot however, speak for every protestant.

The fact that one Protestant can't speak in any universality regarding Protestant faith is one of my top questions. Why is it impossible? Is God a God of confusion that he would tell one denomination what is true to them, but yet false to another denomination?

This seems like a valid enough question. Not sure why it seems not to be allowable to ask, nor has there ever been any reasonable answer to it either.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[CardinalBaseball]

Hey JCrawf, you post as if all Protestants have the same beliefs. If you want answers, doing such a thing won't get you them.

 

[racer]

Hey JCrawf, you post as if all Protestants have the same beliefs. If you want answers, doing such a thing won't get you them.

I've already pointed this out to him. I don't think he's listening . . . . . .

 

[Uphill Battle]

The fact that one Protestant can't speak in any universality regarding Protestant faith is one of my top questions. Why is it impossible? Is God a God of confusion that he would tell one denomination what is true to them, but yet false to another denomination?

This seems like a valid enough question. Not sure why it seems not to be allowable to ask, nor has there ever been any reasonable answer to it either.

Pax Tecum,

John

True. Nor is there any reasonable answer to why all R.C.C. don't hold to the same teachings, and also if The R.C.C. and Orthodox schisim was over an iota, that their beliefs are so different as well.