Christian Evangelicals - not all are made equal

[diamondgirl]

I still prescribe to the liberal Protestant view over the Catholic Church because to be honest it's easier and more free, no obligation.

I do respect all the things Catholics seem to have to do, per the teachings of their Church. I just was always under the impression that the Catholic Church was corrupt, oppressive, bad. From listening to the Bible-in-Year podcast hosted by this Catholic priest it changed by negative view of Catholicism. I better understand now, even though I probably won't prescribe to it. My life is hard enough without the additional responsibilities of being a Catholic.

The Catholic Church is a very powerful entity and no one seems to want to speak directly against it, which is probably why no one is responding to my question about whether Faith alone, praying and worshiping on your own, in front of the TV or listening to podcasts, apart from any church is okay and enough.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

I'm having trouble reconciling the ideas "I was always under the impression that the Catholic Church was corrupt, oppressive, bad" with "The Catholic Church is a very powerful entity and no one seems to want to speak directly against it." The former exists, in my experience, precisely because many Protestants have done such a thorough job of speaking against the Catholic Church.

But that's never been my intention. There are reasons I'm not a Catholic (some of which I've already detailed, and I don't really care to do more than that), but I think if we don't have at least some humility about our convictions... well, let's just say that there are plenty of folks on this board (let alone elsewhere) who will be happy to drive trucks through the holes in our beliefs.

As to your last point... honestly, the question of faith alone was lost in the mud of your previous posts. I don't even remember it. I'll reply by saying that whether it's "enough" depends on what you mean if I asked you the question "enough for what?" If we're only talking about salvation, I'd probably say "yeah" (although I prefer to focus on the action of Jesus dying on the cross even to the frequently-asserted need for the individual believer to affirm faith in Christ). If you're talking about living the kind of life God wants you to live (much more important, in my view, although that's wholly separate to the question of salvation), I'd say "probably not," because it's through fellowship with other believers that one deepens and corrects one's own faith. I become a better person because I allow others to be part of my life. One can be influenced by podcasts and TV and so forth (indeed, I'm sure that I am), but it's not a substitute for real relationships with people.

But as we've seen, fellowship with believers who believe in bad things can lead to all sorts of horrible things, so one does well to be careful. And, obviously, one can be influenced in positive ways by non-believers, as well, and I haven't even begun to address that.

 

[KidTDragon]

This was really the only possible outcome.

Evangelicals are now rejecting 'liberal' teachings of Jesus

Christian devotees of former President Donald Trump are denouncing Bible verses attributed to Jesus as "weak," according to an evangelical leader.

www.newsweek.com

Reality: "I wonder which Onion article I should bring to life today? Ooo, here's a good one!"

I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Everybody has this image of "crazy Christians" based on what they hear in the media, but it's just not true. Most Christians are normal, decent folks. We don't all blindly follow a bunch of outdated biblical tenets or go all fanatical about every bit of dogma. What I'm trying to say is, don't...

www.theonion.com

 

[Pale Rider]

 

[diamondgirl]

When I was down and out, I found this televangelist that really helped me:

He was saying it's okay to be yourself and just trust God. That's a message you just don't hear much in church anymore. They speak out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand they say, "Nothing in my hand I bring simply to thy Cross I cling. " That's the hook to get you in. Then later on once they think they've got you, they start saying you have to do this, this, and this and they start beating you over the head with God's Word.

Sadly, I think this is feature of all churches, and perhaps all human relationships as well.

 

[KidTDragon]

Sadly, I think this is feature of all churches, and perhaps all human relationships as well.

I take it you haven't had a lot of healthy relationships with other humans.

 

[diamondgirl]

The Old Testament is a fascinating prophecy of what's to come in the New Testament. I'm terrible at geography and I did not pay attention during my World History class. I wish I had or I might understand more of what's going on.

It seems to me like the first mention of any sort of geography in the Bible starts in Genesis with the Tower of Babel, which I read was Babylon. I thought Babylon was only a myth, like the lost city of Atlantis, which I think preceded any written human history. Then the next place is the Jews in Egypt fleeing the Pharaoh in Exodus. After that the geography gets really murky for me.

The Old Testament actually predicts the four kingdoms: Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman empires, and foretells Alexander the Great. Daniel and Zechariah wrote prophecies concerning Greece and Alexander’s Macedonian Empire.

By God’s inspiration, Daniel predicted that there would be a succession of four “global” empires. His prophecy included many details, including the fact that the Greek Empire would split into four parts.

 

[Plutoniumboss]

Are they prophecies, or are they histories?

 

[LordGigaIce]

I thought Babylon was only a myth

Oh you sweet summer child.

I did not pay attention during my World History class

This was clearly a mistake.

 

[diamondgirl]

Are they prophecies, or are they histories?

The name “Alexander” or “Alexander the Great,” referring to the Macedonian king, never appears in the Bible. However, the prophets Daniel and Zechariah wrote prophecies concerning Greece and Alexander’s Macedonian Empire. The non-eschatological prophecies in Daniel have proved so reliable that some critics have tried to post-date his writing, even though copious literary, historical, and biblical factors point to a date of writing in the sixth century B.C. (see the third paragraph of this article). Zechariah, writing sometime between 520 and 470 B.C., was also well before Alexander’s rise to power.

Another example: the book of Daniel uses a literary style and specific Persian and Greek words that place it around the time of Cyrus the Great (ca. 530 B.C.). Linguistic evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls gives us authentically dated examples of Hebrew and Aramaic writing from the second and third centuries B.C., when some claim Daniel was written, and it does not match that found in Daniel, which was written in the sixth century B.C.

 

[NovaSaber]

The more recent date isn't because "the prophecies are so reliable", it's because they change from being accurate to not accurate around the time the book was actually written.

From the Wikipedia page:

The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164 BC. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.[49]

Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.

 

[diamondgirl]

The Catholic Church really has lost all credibility with their priests molesting children. They have absolutely no leg to stand on.

The Protestant denominations are not that much better. The divorce rate in those churches have always been higher than in the general population.

That's why I think all you need is Jesus, a Bible, and a cup of coffee.

 

[The Mighty Mollusk]

I only need one of those three things, and then only sometimes.

 

[diamondgirl]

When I was in school, there was a group passing out pamphlets or brochures with the name of their group called "Jews for Jesus".

Is this a thing?

 

[Pocket]

Are there Jewish people who are Christians? Yes, just like there are white (and black, and Asian) people who convert to Judaism.

 

[Stepwise]

Actually, Jews for Jesus was a legit organization at one point. Haven't heard anything about them in years, though.

 

[diamondgirl]

I only need one of those three things, and then only sometimes.

 

[diamondgirl]

My boy Martin Luther was not a perfect man, but he was the best thing to happen to Christianity by bring about the Protestant Reformation.

In general, the Reformers argued that salvation in Christianity was a completed status based on faith in Jesus alone and not a process that could involve good works, as in the Catholic view.

 

[NovaSaber]

The idea that what you believe matters more than what you do is literally the worst idea in Christian theology.

 

[LordGigaIce]

My boy Martin Luther was not a perfect man, but he was the best thing to happen to Christianity by bring about the Protestant Reformation.

In general, the Reformers argued that salvation in Christianity was a completed status based on faith in Jesus alone and not a process that could involve good works, as in the Catholic view.

So the Catholics argued that salvation was dependent on deeds and Luther argued faith alone?

Rare Catholic W