You say you want change but.....

[Rickety]

Is it just me, or does it seem like all the Pastors in all the churches keep preaching over and over again about how the world needs to "change" but they never leave the security of their church building. Why don't they go out into the streets and protest, obviously they don't want it bad enough. The only way for your voice to be heard is by using it and they don't. They trust in some unnatural power to intervene and make the world change but that's just not gonna happen! You gotta get out there and speak! You gotta protest and hold public gatherings! You have to get your voice out in order for any change to even begin but they don't. They stay in their churches and never branch out. Am I the only one who has noticed this? Surely not!

[jay123]

And what exactly would you have them protest against? Differing opinions?

[Sthenno]

I don't know about where you're from but round here plenty of people do just that. There's often people in the city centre with placards and megaphones preaching about how we all need to see the error of our ways. Mostly, they get ignored. Sometimes, people throw stuff at them. It's probably a lot more appealing to preach to the converted.

[seb villain]

I do understand what your saying but there weapon is to drill there messages into your head so that you can do there bidding. Wow makes them sound sinister. Who am i to judge.

[Sthenno]

I do understand what your saying but there weapon is to drill there messages into your head so that you can do there bidding. Wow makes them sound sinister. Who am i to judge.

I guess change can be effected on many levels. If a religious person preaches to a congregation and they all go out into that world with that influence in their head, that's going to be a much more effective approach than for that preacher to stand in the street and be ignored.

In my experience, people don't welcome preaching being shoved in their faces.

[seb villain]

I guess change can be effected on many levels. If a religious person preaches to a congregation and they all go out into that world with that influence in their head, that's going to be a much more effective approach than for that preacher to stand in the street and be ignored.

In my experience, people don't welcome preaching being shoved in their faces.

Exactly iv been in town when preachers try to approch you and well me anyway never want to listen to them. Its because you aren't in the right frame of mind for that to interest you at that specific time instead you would rather leave it for Sunday.

[MARAB0D]

Preaching is different from protesting! In the first case it is a religious thing, in the second one it is political. The protesters are for some reason trying to make their religious visions to be materialized in the political changes... Strange! I thought the religions are about personal relationships with God...

OK, let us assume we are all here wicked and worthless, except the believers of course. Why then they are not happy living like they believe they must? Are they afraid we would be punished by God with some terrible Flood which would affect them too? But why being worried if they have their reward in the afterlife? What they need politics for? In their place I would be rather praying for the Lord's powers to prevail! Let the Lord wipes us off and leaves the earth to the rightful ones, I have no objection if he can do this. Alternative praying motif would be for the Lord to leave the sinners alone and take away the rightful ones, to make Rapture must be easier than to wipe everyone off... Once again no protests needed, just say your Grace regularly... no logic!

[Sthenno]

Preaching is different from protesting! In the first case it is a religious thing, in the second one it is political. The protesters are for some reason trying to make their religious visions to be materialized in the political changes... Strange! I thought the religions are about personal relationships with God...

But why is protesting for religious reasons any less valid for protesting for other reasons? I protested against the war in Ira because I believed, as an agnostic making my own judgements, that it was wrong. If somebody had reached the same conclusions based on their religion rather than their personal morals, they would still have just as uch of a right to protest.

OK, let us assume we are all here wicked and worthless, except the believers of course. Why then they are not happy living like they believe they must? Are they afraid we would be punished by God with some terrible Flood which would affect them too? But why being worried if they have their reward in the afterlife? What they need politics for? In their place I would be rather praying for the Lord's powers to prevail! Let the Lord wipes us off and leaves the earth to the rightful ones, I have no objection if he can do this. Alternative praying motif would be for the Lord to leave the sinners alone and take away the rightful ones, to make Rapture must be easier than to wipe everyone off... Once again no protests needed, just say your Grace regularly... no logic!

I assume it comes from a need to 'spread the word'... it being part and parcel of their religion to try and convert others. Plus, I guess, if you have friends and loved ones who are non-believers the whole rapture thing wouldn't be super appealing.

[MARAB0D]

But why is protesting for religious reasons any less valid for protesting for other reasons? I protested against the war in Ira because I believed, as an agnostic making my own judgements, that it was wrong. If somebody had reached the same conclusions based on their religion rather than their personal morals, they would still have just as uch of a right to protest.

I assume it comes from a need to 'spread the word'... it being part and parcel of their religion to try and convert others. Plus, I guess, if you have friends and loved ones who are non-believers the whole rapture thing wouldn't be super appealing.

What you are describing is not a traditional religion, it is some form of fundamentalism, so the typical answers would not probably work. Why spread the word instead of remaining silent and enjoying own relationships with God? Are these relationships such unsatisfactory that leave a void to be filled with social activity? Are you sure they are with god?

Spiritual life belongs to God, and political life belongs to Caesar. War is from the Caesar, it is a political thing unless it is a jihad of course. Why would a believer protest the war if this war (as anything else) is God's will?

If the troubles come from a non-traditional religion, it is necessary then to scrutinise it on official level and decide, is it a religion or a dangerous cult; after this court may make a decision, can it be allowed or must be banned. For the believers to carry the protest slogans for the matters irrelevant to their religion, they need to be seen as extremists.

[Sthenno]

What you are describing is not a traditional religion, it is some form of fundamentalism, so the typical answers would not probably work. Why spread the word instead of remaining silent and enjoying own relationships with God? Are these relationships such unsatisfactory that leave a void to be filled with social activity? Are you sure they are with god?

Spiritual life belongs to God, and political life belongs to Caesar. War is from the Caesar, it is a political thing unless it is a jihad of course. Why would a believer protest the war if this war (as anything else) is God's will?

If the troubles come from a non-traditional religion, it is necessary then to scrutinise it on official level and decide, is it a religion or a dangerous cult; after this court may make a decision, can it be allowed or must be banned. For the believers to carry the protest slogans for the matters irrelevant to their religion, they need to be seen as extremists.

It's not fundamentalism to spread the word of your religion, it can be found in the scripture of most modern religions.

The bibles teaches people to teach non-believers to obey everything god has commanded of them. Just as one person might interpret that as a call to join the clergy, another might take it upon themselves to spread the word of 'love thy neighbour' by protesting against a war.

[+Sherapy]

But why is protesting for religious reasons any less valid for protesting for other reasons? I protested against the war in Ira because I believed, as an agnostic making my own judgements, that it was wrong. If somebody had reached the same conclusions based on their religion rather than their personal morals, they would still have just as uch of a right to protest.

I assume it comes from a need to 'spread the word'... it being part and parcel of their religion to try and convert others. Plus, I guess, if you have friends and loved ones who are non-believers the whole rapture thing wouldn't be super appealing.

I think it depends on what you do with what you protest about........

its clearly quite different to protest antigay legislation that separates and divides us from each other, infers that because you are a consenting adult who prefers your own sex as not fit for equal rights is far different then to protest war isn't working, based on what we can observe, the cost of lives is too much a price, for not doing any good then to suggest loudly lets try something else..

if what i am doing isnt producing the results that are a benefit, for all invovled then i change it, no problem just try something else, I care about humans, not advocating ideas that are harmful..

we have allowed constructs that are unwilling to grow, to be flexible based on the needs of our culture....

....

there is such a thing as responsible, compassionate free speech..its a good idea to have room to grow.. i think that is what marabear might be saying....

[Voyager10]

They are preaching to the choir

[MARAB0D]

It's not fundamentalism to spread the word of your religion, it can be found in the scripture of most modern religions.

The bibles teaches people to teach non-believers to obey everything god has commanded of them. Just as one person might interpret that as a call to join the clergy, another might take it upon themselves to spread the word of 'love thy neighbour' by protesting against a war.

This is exactly what the fundamentalism does - lives by the Bible. Or by Quran, it does not matter, as neither of them was written as a handbook of how to live, but as a reference books for the priests only. in Fundamentalist religions ordinary believers assume the position of a priest toward the non-followers, and instead of FOLLOWING God start to PROMOTE him. This exactly case! Have you ever seen specifically Catholics or Lutherans protesting against something? Probably not - because their thoughts are about god, not about the mundane matters; they come to church to forget about the mundane matters, not to discuss them! In your case there seems to be no cure.

[Sthenno]

This is exactly what the fundamentalism does - lives by the Bible. Or by Quran, it does not matter, as neither of them was written as a handbook of how to live, but as a reference books for the priests only. in Fundamentalist religions ordinary believers assume the position of a priest toward the non-followers, and instead of FOLLOWING God start to PROMOTE him. This exactly case! Have you ever seen specifically Catholics or Lutherans protesting against something? Probably not - because their thoughts are about god, not about the mundane matters; they come to church to forget about the mundane matters, not to discuss them! In your case there seems to be no cure.

I'm not sure what my case is, nor what cure I'm meant to be seeking.

There are plenty of Catholic anti-abortion protestors.

I don't agree that only fundamentalists try to convert - I have had many discussions with Christian friends who have tried to persuade me to their way of thnking, and I wouldn't call any of them fundamentalists. If we're saying they're fundamentalist because they live by the bible, then where is the line drawn? All followers of all religions follow their scripture to a lesser and greater extent, how do we decide which bits make them 'fundamentalists'?

[MARAB0D]

I'm not sure what my case is, nor what cure I'm meant to be seeking.

There are plenty of Catholic anti-abortion protestors.

I don't agree that only fundamentalists try to convert - I have had many discussions with Christian friends who have tried to persuade me to their way of thnking, and I wouldn't call any of them fundamentalists. If we're saying they're fundamentalist because they live by the bible, then where is the line drawn? All followers of all religions follow their scripture to a lesser and greater extent, how do we decide which bits make them 'fundamentalists'?

Line is drawn with no effort! When a believer reads and interprets the Bible (which is a function of a specially educated priest only), then this believer de-facto establishes a heresy as soon as some of the interpretations becomes non-traditional. And when this believer started teaching the others about the Bible (assumes the role of a prophet) the it would be the Fundamentalism in full scale. It can also be seen other way - when the believer instead of looking at God or at the own sins starts to look at the sins of the others, this also would be Fundamentalism. Ugly case of a pot calling the kettle black, in other words - it is always accompanied by arrogance, as such believer sees all others as spiritually inferior and given to him as students. Catholics are not immuned, some of them also can be fundamentalists, but there are sects which are based on this type of behavior, this being the reason moderate religions see them as "demonic".

Talk to V..., she would explain which aberrations in the brain chemistry cause this effect. Listen to her and then ask in your church, how many among the parish ever had a head trauma. But not all remember, as the trauma could be at birth.

Edited January 14, 2010 by marabod

[+Paranoid Android]

Line is drawn with no effort! When a believer reads and interprets the Bible (which is a function of a specially educated priest only)

By the decrees of the New Testament, we are all priests of God's kingdom. There is no speciality caste of priests. The modern day priests and ministers fulfil the role better described in the New Testament as "overseers". Being that all Christians are priests of God's kingdom, there is no special requirement for Christians to access the Bible or rely on any one authority to interpret it for us. Of course, that doesn't mean people can make the Bible say whatever they want - their interpretations still have to be contextually appropriate, or else they are simply bad interpretations, or wrong interpretations (and there are plenty of both out in our world at the moment).

~ PA

[MARAB0D]

By the decrees of the New Testament, we are all priests of God's kingdom. There is no speciality caste of priests. The modern day priests and ministers fulfil the role better described in the New Testament as "overseers". Being that all Christians are priests of God's kingdom, there is no special requirement for Christians to access the Bible or rely on any one authority to interpret it for us. Of course, that doesn't mean people can make the Bible say whatever they want - their interpretations still have to be contextually appropriate, or else they are simply bad interpretations, or wrong interpretations (and there are plenty of both out in our world at the moment).

~ PA

Priests do not do any other work except serving to God. The other people maintain them and their families for the entire their lives. For them to be an intermediary between the believers and God. They study god all their lives 24/7 and this is their lifestyle and function. They do not belong to themselves, they belong to their church. Any second their sleep can be interrupted and they go to express support and solace to dying people, they listen to confessions, help the sinners, baptise the children etc etc.

Your delusion of yourself being a priest does not make you a priest anyhow, as a priest you appear an impostor and a fraud. In my opinion of course. It is not God's Kingdom here at all, wake up, you are at EARTH.

Edited January 14, 2010 by marabod

[MysticOnion]

Outside of a church - if anyone who is an ordinary person claims to have seen, spoken or communed with the Lord and are claiming to carry out his commandments, then they are seen as insane.

Whats the difference?

[+Paranoid Android]

Priests do not do any other work except serving to God. The other people maintain them and their families for the entire their lives. For them to be an intermediary between the believers and God. They study god all their lives 24/7 and this is their lifestyle and function. They do not belong to themselves, they belong to their church. Any second their sleep can be interrupted and they go to express support and solace to dying people, they listen to confessions, help the sinners, baptise the children etc etc.

Your delusion of yourself being a priest does not make you a priest anyhow, as a priest you appear an impostor and a fraud. In my opinion of course. It is not God's Kingdom here at all, wake up, you are at EARTH.

I'm sorry, but you are mistaking the role of the overseer with those of a priest. The role of the overseer is one dedicated to God 24/7 in terms of ministering to a congregation and preaching. Everything you have described as the role of the priest is technically the role of the overseer (with the exception of being an intermediary between believers and God - this is just wrong; as far as I'm concerned, Jesus does that job on his own quite admirably) - it just so happens that in the modern world we give them titles such as "Reverend" or "Priest" or "Minister" - but these are just titles, with very little biblical backing - for example, "minister" is not a title, but a job description, something all Christians should be doing anyway. All of us are priests of God, and if you want scriptural backing, read 1 Peter 2:9, in which Peter refers to all the people of God as a "royal priesthood" (in that same verse he refers to us as a chosen people, a holy nation and a people belonging to God). No single human on earth has the divine right to tell me what the Bible says - that sets up a hierarchy similar to the Catholic magesterium which gives one man (the Pope) divine powers in dictating church doctrine - and that is something I would never subscribe to.

I think our difference here is that you are assigning a definition to what it is to be a "priest" that is not backed up by the Bible.

~ PA

Edited January 14, 2010 by Paranoid Android

[Karlis]

I'm sorry, but you are mistaking the role of the overseer with those of a priest. ...

... No single human on earth has the divine right to tell me what the Bible says - that sets up a hierarchy similar to the Catholic magesterium which gives one man (the Pope) divine powers in dictating church doctrine - and that is something I would never subscribe to.

I think our difference here is that you are assigning a definition to what it is to be a "priest" that is not backed up by the Bible.

~ PA

Not that I want to speak for Marabod, Pa, but Marabod has previously posted that all *true* church doctrines and/or teachings have to adhere to the agreement reached through the Council of Nicea. As I understand Marabod (and please correct me if I understand you wrongly) any variatins from this is heresy, and thus a "distortion" or cultish variation of True Teachings of The Church. Unless I'm badly mistaken, Marabod regards the following as pretty well defining how Christianity has to be regarded -- and other opinions are in error.

The first Council of Nicaea is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. The council did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. This idea had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. It had long been widely endorsed by the Christian community of the otherwise pagan city of Rome. [2] Instead, the council affirmed and defined what it had found to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is; that Christ is the one true God in Deity with the Father.

wiki link

What say you, Marabod? Am I correct in my understanding of your views?

Karlis

[MARAB0D]

Not that I want to speak for Marabod, Pa, but Marabod has previously posted that all *true* church doctrines and/or teachings have to adhere to the agreement reached through the Council of Nicea. As I understand Marabod (and please correct me if I understand you wrongly) any variatins from this is heresy, and thus a "distortion" or cultish variation of True Teachings of The Church. Unless I'm badly mistaken, Marabod regards the following as pretty well defining how Christianity has to be regarded -- and other opinions are in error.

The first Council of Nicaea is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. The council did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. This idea had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. It had long been widely endorsed by the Christian community of the otherwise pagan city of Rome. [2] Instead, the council affirmed and defined what it had found to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is; that Christ is the one true God in Deity with the Father.

wiki link

What say you, Marabod? Am I correct in my understanding of your views?

Karlis

Well, Karlis - yes, technically correct despite I have no right to speak on behalf of religion to which I do not belong. But as soon as I belong to the culture, formed by this religion during the last 1200 years, I feel it possible for me to express its opinion despite god does not exist for me in a form this religion follows him. I can also say that in the current case Catholic Apostolic Church in all its modern forms would see some signs of a demonic possession. Sorry, PA, it is not my opinion, but it is most possible THEIR opinion. As for me I can only pity you, seeing the depth of the spiritual gulf in which you managed to throw yourself. I cannot help you anyhow as I of course do not do exorcism. Such levels of exaltation and blind zeal I observe first time in my life.

[MARAB0D]

I'm sorry, but you are mistaking the role of the overseer with those of a priest. The role of the overseer is one dedicated to God 24/7 in terms of ministering to a congregation and preaching. Everything you have described as the role of the priest is technically the role of the overseer (with the exception of being an intermediary between believers and God - this is just wrong; as far as I'm concerned, Jesus does that job on his own quite admirably) - it just so happens that in the modern world we give them titles such as "Reverend" or "Priest" or "Minister" - but these are just titles, with very little biblical backing - for example, "minister" is not a title, but a job description, something all Christians should be doing anyway. All of us are priests of God, and if you want scriptural backing, read 1 Peter 2:9, in which Peter refers to all the people of God as a "royal priesthood" (in that same verse he refers to us as a chosen people, a holy nation and a people belonging to God). No single human on earth has the divine right to tell me what the Bible says - that sets up a hierarchy similar to the Catholic magesterium which gives one man (the Pope) divine powers in dictating church doctrine - and that is something I would never subscribe to.

I think our difference here is that you are assigning a definition to what it is to be a "priest" that is not backed up by the Bible.

~ PA

Thats alright, PA, let us just forget about this topic and relax. I strongly advise you to use the advantage of hot weather, buy a sixpack and spend weekend on some not very crowded beach, if you have there such. Do not take the Bible with you, better take some girls. Take the sunscreen too.

[+Paranoid Android]

Not that I want to speak for Marabod, Pa, but Marabod has previously posted that all *true* church doctrines and/or teachings have to adhere to the agreement reached through the Council of Nicea. As I understand Marabod (and please correct me if I understand you wrongly) any variatins from this is heresy, and thus a "distortion" or cultish variation of True Teachings of The Church. Unless I'm badly mistaken, Marabod regards the following as pretty well defining how Christianity has to be regarded -- and other opinions are in error.

The first Council of Nicaea is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. The council did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. This idea had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. It had long been widely endorsed by the Christian community of the otherwise pagan city of Rome. [2] Instead, the council affirmed and defined what it had found to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is; that Christ is the one true God in Deity with the Father.

wiki link

What say you, Marabod? Am I correct in my understanding of your views?

Karlis

That makes sense, but one can adhere to the Nicene Creed and still have differences on other points. I agree totally with the Nicene Creed. It is a neat statement that (in my opinion) captures the essential belief of who God is. But what should happen if someone asks me about Eschatology (as one example)? Should I say, "oh gee, maybe I should ask the Pope when/how he thinks the world will end". I have no such authority-figure whom I need to go to to ask their opinion. Sure I seek as many views as I can and see what biblical basis they have before I make my decision, but in the end I don't submit to an earthly authority to tell me that I must believe person x on matters of End Times, or evolution, or free will, or any other such thing. Jesus is my teacher, and I seek his guidance by reading his word in the Bible.

That aside, none of this addresses the fact that according to the Bible, all followers of God are his priests. Every single one. Sure, out of that priesthood, there have been some that are called to be teachers, evangelists, etc - but all of us are members of God's royal priesthood.

~ PA

Edited January 14, 2010 by Paranoid Android

[+Sherapy]

I'm sorry, but you are mistaking the role of the overseer with those of a priest. The role of the overseer is one dedicated to God 24/7 in terms of ministering to a congregation and preaching. Everything you have described as the role of the priest is technically the role of the overseer (with the exception of being an intermediary between believers and God - this is just wrong; as far as I'm concerned, Jesus does that job on his own quite admirably) - it just so happens that in the modern world we give them titles such as "Reverend" or "Priest" or "Minister" - but these are just titles, with very little biblical backing - for example, "minister" is not a title, but a job description, something all Christians should be doing anyway. All of us are priests of God, and if you want scriptural backing, read 1 Peter 2:9, in which Peter refers to all the people of God as a "royal priesthood" (in that same verse he refers to us as a chosen people, a holy nation and a people belonging to God). No single human on earth has the divine right to tell me what the Bible says - that sets up a hierarchy similar to the Catholic magesterium which gives one man (the Pope) divine powers in dictating church doctrine - and that is something I would never subscribe to.

I think our difference here is that you are assigning a definition to what it is to be a "priest" that is not backed up by the Bible.

~ PA

Pa then your opinion on the bible would not be informed, it would be subjective based on your own filters( life experiences and claims of what you think.....)

therefore your appeal to "your" authority is your opinion correct?......

can you support your opinion with evidence that marabear's posit is in error....

[MARAB0D]

That makes sense, but one can adhere to the Nicene Creed and still have differences on other points. I agree totally with the Nicene Creed. It is a neat statement that (in my opinion) captures the essential belief of who God is. But what should happen if someone asks me about Eschatology (as one example)? Should I say, "oh gee, maybe I should ask the Pope when/how he thinks the world will end". I have no such authority-figure whom I need to go to to ask their opinion. Sure I seek as many views as I can and see what biblical basis they have before I make my decision, but in the end I don't submit to an earthly authority to tell me that I must believe person x on matters of End Times, or evolution, or free will, or any other such thing. Jesus is my teacher, and I seek his guidance by reading his word in the Bible.

That aside, none of this addresses the fact that according to the Bible, all followers of God are his priests. Every single one. Sure, out of that priesthood, there have been some that are called to be teachers, evangelists, etc - but all of us are members of God's royal priesthood.

~ PA

"one can adhere to the Nicene Creed and still have differences on other points." - yes, by definition of Nicene Congress deviation in one point constitutes a Heresy, while deviation on more than one point constitutes a non-Christian.

"I agree totally with the Nicene Creed." - No, you not! You do not believe in ONE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, as the Creed requires, and belong to some other church, which is not Catholic and not Apostolic. This alone makes you a Heretic in accordance to the traditional Christian views. But if you the same time have doubts in any other points of the Creed, this makes you a non-Christian. It does not matter what you yourself think about who you are. The religious Creeds must be always taken literally word-to-word, they contain no double sense - but the same time they must be treated with caution. For example I fully agree with Islamic Creed, Symbol of Faith "There is no God except Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet" - and this in the times of early Islam could make me a follower, but not in our times, when the Creed is interpreted in more narrow ways through their amended Theology. My agreement with Islamic Creed would not make the other Muslims to recognize me as one of them; similar way the other Christians (in traditional definition) would not recognize your views as Christian.