Fake Catholic Vs True Catholics. Fake Christian verses True Christians.

Gathomas88 said:

Alright, smart guy. Why don't you explain to us what all this nonsense is about then. Eh?

Click to expand...

Becase I'm not all that interested in it. I provided some links to give you a brief overview as well as a book recommendation in case it piques your interest even further. Maybe the links didn't explain it as well as I thought they did, but at least it's a starting point. If you really wanted to know more (and don't care enough to get the book), you could start googling Marcus Borg's writings or clicking around the Patheos website to read other people's views.

If you don't care enough to read up on it, that's fine, you don't need to. We don't need to know everything about all branches of Christianity. My knowledge of Eastern Orthodox Christianity is minimal, and I'm ok with that.

It would be silly for me to attack Eastern Othodoxy when someone mentions it in a post. It would be even sillier to follow that up with a demand that someone explain it to me once its pointed out that all the beliefs I attacked them for aren't beliefs they actually hold.

Gathomas88 said:

Right now, all you're doing is tap dancing around the issue, while cooing about how the rest of us just aren't hip enough to "get" this heretical moron's latent brilliance.

Click to expand...

No one has mentioned being hip except you.

You also just called someone whose life and beliefs you clearly know nothing about (and admitted you could not make heads or tails of) a "heretical moron". Which fruit of the spirit is that?

CrabCake said:

Becase I'm not all that interested in it. I provided some links to give you a brief overview as well as a book recommendation in case it piques your interest even further. Maybe the links didn't explain it as well as I thought they did, but at least it's a starting point. If you really wanted to know more (and don't care enough to get the book), you could start googling Marcus Borg's writings or clicking around the Patheos website to read other people's views.

If you don't care enough to read up on it, that's fine, you don't need to. We don't need to know everything about all branches of Christianity. My knowledge of Eastern Orthodox Christianity is minimal, and I'm ok with that.

It would be silly for me to attack Eastern Othodoxy when someone mentions it in a post. It would be even sillier to follow that up with a demand that someone explain it to me once its pointed out that all the beliefs I attacked them for aren't beliefs they actually hold.

Click to expand...

Your concession is accepted then.

If you're going to deny our appraisals of this character, but not bring anything of actual substance to the table to defend him, nor even clarify what you hold him to actually believe, then this conversation is pointless.

No one has mentioned being hip except you.

You also just called someone whose life and beliefs you clearly know nothing about (and admitted you could not make heads or tails of) a "heretical moron". Which fruit of the spirit is that?

Click to expand...

The brutally honest and truthful variety.

This man denies the divinity of Christ. He denies the legitimacy of his teachings, and the last 2000 years of Christian tradition. Worst of all, he actively seeks to lead others onto this same perverted path of heresy, sin, and Godlessness, while still having the audacity to describe himself as being a "Christian."

He is, simply speaking, a false prophet and blasphemer. I'd even go so far as to describe him as being an active agent of Satan in the world.

Saints, and other persons far more holy than myself, have physically assaulted men for less.

CrabCake said:

Becase I'm not all that interested in it. I provided some links to give you a brief overview as well as a book recommendation in case it piques your interest even further. Maybe the links didn't explain it as well as I thought they did, but at least it's a starting point. If you really wanted to know more (and don't care enough to get the book), you could start googling Marcus Borg's writings or clicking around the Patheos website to read other people's views.

Click to expand...

Why would anyone want to read Marcus Borg? The man was part of the Jesus Seminar that cast colored beads to vote on what should be real and true in the New Testament.

Top Cat said:

Why is that interesting? Catholics consider themselves the only real Christians. Hell the Catholic Church teaches that to its minions.

And Christians often question the validity of other Christians.

It's sanctimoniously hilarious.

Click to expand...

No, what you've claimed is ignorantly hilarious.

RAMOSS said:

I keep on hearing the claim about Fake Christian/Catholic/Libertarian/etc etc' verses 'True Christian/Catholic/Libertarian/etc etc etc'.

How can you tell the difference?

Click to expand...

Well I suppose it's the same as fake atheists.

One has to know the real traditional definition of the term to know if one falls under that category.

I heard a skeptic claiming he considers himself a Christian since he agrees with the philosophy of Jesus Christ.
That's what happens when relativism rules - the truth can be manipulated.

CrabCake said:

Right, that's exactly why I mentioned him. Because he doesn't fit your criteria. Yet, he and the others mentioned are central figures within what is commonly referred to as liberal Christianity. You've disqualified a whole wing of Christianity with your definition.

That's before we even start getting into the whole emerging (or emergent) church paradigm.

My point is that your view of Christianity is probably a bit too narrow.

Click to expand...

The road to salvation is indeed a too narrow road. According to Jesus.


Matthew 7
The Narrow and Wide Gates
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.


Not everyone who calls themselves Christians will be saved.



Matthew 7
True and False Disciples
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Gathomas88 said:

Your knowledge of Catholicism ('true,' or otherwise) seems to be somewhat lacking, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

In what way? the answer i gave concerning the div. r. of kings is from a catholic understanding of the bible. it is not a deep theological matter.

hado117 said:

In what way? the answer i gave concerning the div. r. of kings is from a catholic understanding of the bible. it is not a deep theological matter.

Click to expand...

ok its not a catholic belief but a biblical concept.

RAMOSS said:

I keep on hearing the claim about Fake Christian/Catholic/Libertarian/etc etc' verses 'True Christian/Catholic/Libertarian/etc etc etc'.

How can you tell the difference?

Click to expand...

Magic.

For real, it's often argued as a "no true Scotsman". But it has a purpose. Let's say some guy calls himself a democrat. But he supports the war in Afgahnistan. He supports other military campaigns. He often cuts taxes rather than increase spending for market stimulus. Stimulus packages are relatively small. He cuts deficit spending. Is anti-single payer healthcare. Is anti-marijuana. Doesn't care that corporate profits are rising. And finally, he calls protesters thugs. One could easily say that Obama is not a true democrat.

The same works for Christianity. It's boundaries were defined years ago and should be pretty easy to understand. So what about Christians that don't think the soul is immortal? Eh, they're still Christian. What about Christians that don't submit to the pope? Eh, they're still Christian. What about Christians that don't think the bible is inherent? Eh, they're still Christian. What about Christians that don't think Jesus existed? Ya, those exist. And I'll say that's "not a true Christian". They're just western Buddhists at that point.

And then Christians argue between ourselves about which is the correct policy. Is homosexual marriage righteous or unrighteous? Is abortion righteous or unrighteous? Is marijuana righteous or unrighteous? And the list goes on. And certain options are less Christian than others. Maybe the "less Christian" option is the right one, but we can judge it by the traditional standards.

I believe that there is a Deity and it is a Trinity. I don't think that the First, Second, or Third persons have an innate gender, so none are male. I think we have a soul, but that the soul dies with the body. I think that Peter was the first pope, but I do not believe the pope is ever infallible about faith and morals. I don't think we can call any act we do "good" because it has finite value. I reject nearly every miracle and desire a physical explanation for them. I don't think we can be saved because we "choose Jesus". I think the bread and wine in Church is often the literal body and blood of Jesus, and that we gnaw on his flesh when we eat it. I think that all of those are the correct beliefs, but how Christian am I?

RAMOSS said:

I keep on hearing the claim about Fake Christian/Catholic/Libertarian/etc etc' verses 'True Christian/Catholic/Libertarian/etc etc etc'.

How can you tell the difference?

Click to expand...

It's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

It's faulty reasoning. On the part of the person making the fallacy. They assert that their beliefs are unfalsifiable no matter how compelling the evidence, they simply move the goal posts so it doesn't apply to the supposed true[/] example.

It's a way of avoiding valid criticisms.

This sight explains it a little better.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Gathomas88 said:

Libertarianism is not strictly codified, so there is a considerable amount of leeway therein.

This is not true, however, of Christianity, and Catholicism in particular. These systems are codified, and codified in absolutely no uncertain terms. Catholicism also has an established hierarchy specifically tasked with the enforcement and interpretation of that codification, the rulings of which Catholics are, and always have been, compelled to accept.

If one is consciously, and deliberately, going to either ignore, deny, or actively try to usurp those codified standards, then they cannot be considered to be a "true" adherent of the religion. It's really just that simple.

Click to expand...

Actually they can be. Once you are confirmed you are Catholic, unless you are excommunicated you are true Catholic.you don't have to adhere to the religion, you just have to be confirmed.

Who are the real Christians?

Gathomas88 said:

Those who actually follow Christ's teachings, perhaps, rather than ignoring them, or making up their own?

Click to expand...

In which case, all that stuff Goshin quoted is secondary to following the teachings. So salvation IS by good works, and not by faith. If not, why didn't you mention that recognition of man's sinfulness yadda yadda as the sign of a real Christian? Is it indispensable or isn't it?

Gathomas88 said:

I would not. Frankly, I'd say the same of Mormonism, at least as originally envisioned.

Like Islam, both of these religions downgrade Christ's divine status, while adding new scriptures, and new "Savior" figures (who, in many cases, surpass Christ in importance) to the Holy Canon. At best, they are Christian offshoots.

Click to expand...

Mormonism ie The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the same today as it was when it was established on basic fundamental doctrines. And in no way does the LDS church downgrade Christ's divine status, it is quite the opposite. To state otherwise is just ignorance. Likely your concept of Mormonism comes from those idiots that attack the faith. Reading anti-Mormon literature lowers your IQ.

RAMOSS said:

How about how Mormonism is practiced today, with the concept of people are born without sin, and no 'accountability' for sin until age 8, and the reliance of the 'personal revelations' of the LDS prophets. ??

Click to expand...

Let's see, one side says babies go to hell if they are not baptized and the entire Bible suggests God deals with humanity through prophets. If He is the same Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, why would The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints having a living prophet be inconsistent with the Bible, and why would a merciful God condemn little children before they know right from wrong?

Gathomas88 said:

I would not. Frankly, I'd say the same of Mormonism, at least as originally envisioned.

Like Islam, both of these religions downgrade Christ's divine status, while adding new scriptures, and new "Savior" figures (who, in many cases, surpass Christ in importance) to the Holy Canon. At best, they are Christian offshoots.

Click to expand...

The purpose of the Book of Mormon as stated in the title page is to convince everyone, both jew and gentile, that Jesus is the Savior of the world. It is a second witness along with the Bible to this. How can anyone who reads the Book of Mormon think otherwise as basically it testifies that Jesus is the Messiah on every page. There is no figure in Mormonism that surpass Jesus. The name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Jesus is the entire focus of the LDS religion. Here is what the LDS have always believed about Christ:
What do Mormons believe about Jesus Christ? Do Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? | Mormon.org

The real reason why many "Christian" leaders dishonestly lie about LDS beliefs and try and convince their flocks that the LDS are not real Christians is because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the restoration of the New Testament church Christ set up with His true prophets and apostles who have real priesthood authority and if the LDS church is true it means the rest of Christianity's leaders have no real authority from heaven. This puts these Christian leaders in a bad light. For this reason they lie about what the LDS believe. If they were honest they would not do this and simply say they do not believe it is the true restored church, but they have to lie about the LDS belief system and try and make people think they do not really believe in Jesus or that the LDS downgrade His divinity. Which is flat dishonest.

laska said:

The purpose of the Book of Mormon as stated in the title page is to convince everyone, both jew and gentile, that Jesus is the Savior of the world. It is a second witness along with the Bible to this. How can anyone who reads the Book of Mormon think otherwise as basically it testifies that Jesus is the Messiah on every page. There is no figure in Mormonism that surpass Jesus. The name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Jesus is the entire focus of the LDS religion. Here is what the LDS have always believed about Christ:
What do Mormons believe about Jesus Christ? Do Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? | Mormon.org

Click to expand...

So, that's why the whole 'Post-mortum baptisms',.. because they can see through the claims while they are alive.

CrabCake said:

supernatural and even described the supernatural experiences he had (or claims to have had) which led to a deeper relationship with God.

Click to expand...

Well, not really, if you look at his position he denies ressurection, and basically anything supernatural in the bible, his "supernatural experience" is 100% subjective, basically he's saying that one can be a functional atheist and still believe in God. Him having a religious experience is one thing, but when he denies anything in scirpture or religion that an atheist would disagree With shows he's basically functionally, a naturalist.

Umm...no, that's not his position.

Click to expand...

If he doesn't believe Jesus was ressurected, if he doesn't believe God died for Our sins, if he doesn't believe Jesus was uniquely God's son in any way other than metaphore, then what's left?

Of course. But that's not his position. Among other things, he refers to Jesus as: "Word of God", "Son of God", "Messiah", "Word incarnate", "one with God", "at the right hand of God", part of the trinity, and worth praying to. I'm finding it hard to understand how people can read all of that and still so greatly misunderstand his position. Having said that: given you and Gathomas88 both failed to understand that interpretation based on the two letters I linked to; I must assume that maybe those two letters only seem to be clear, concise explanations to those of us who already had a good grasp of the topic to begin with. Perhaps they weren't the best links to provide on the topic after all. Oh well.

I don't intend to spend more time looking for better resources to point to. The information is out there for those interested in it. Even if you choose not to read the fuller treatment in the book I previously recommended, the links within Patheos itself are enough to get a good cross section of views from contemporary liberal Christian voices.

Click to expand...

Refering to Jesus as these Things is meaningless unless you actually understand what he means by those titles.

RGacky3 said:

Well, not really, if you look at his position he denies ressurection, and basically anything supernatural in the bible, his "supernatural experience" is 100% subjective, basically he's saying that one can be a functional atheist and still believe in God. Him having a religious experience is one thing, but when he denies anything in scirpture or religion that an atheist would disagree With shows he's basically functionally, a naturalist.

Click to expand...

Not at all. While he does question whether there was a bodily resurrection, he doesn't deny the disciples had a supernatural encounter with Jesus that changed their lives. He also believes in all of Jesus' healing miracles; he only questions the nature miracles. Finally, if you read any of his writings, you'll realize he also believes to have had supernatural experiences himself.

CrabCake said:

Not at all. While he does question whether there was a bodily resurrection, he doesn't deny the disciples had a supernatural encounter with Jesus that changed their lives. He also believes in all of Jesus' healing miracles; he only questions the nature miracles. Finally, if you read any of his writings, you'll realize he also believes to have had supernatural experiences himself.

Click to expand...

Yes, but how does he define supernatural experiences? if everything he affirms is nothing more than subjective experience, then we're in the realm of naturalism still.

Gathomas88 said:

Libertarianism is not strictly codified, so there is a considerable amount of leeway therein.

This is not true, however, of Christianity, and Catholicism in particular. These systems are codified, and codified in absolutely no uncertain terms. Catholicism also has an established hierarchy specifically tasked with the enforcement and interpretation of that codification, the rulings of which Catholics are, and always have been, compelled to accept.

If one is consciously, and deliberately, going to either ignore, deny, or actively try to usurp those codified standards, then they cannot be considered to be a "true" adherent of the religion. It's really just that simple.

Click to expand...

As a former Catholic and raised as one, I would have to disagree. That is a large misconception of Catholicism. Of course there is a hierarchy, and of course there are many Catholic beliefs/tasks/rulings/whatever, but all those actually do not have to mean a whole lot to the individual who practices Catholicism.... it is tradition, and is where those kind of things finds its value. The idea that these things have been going on for hundreds of years... THE ONLY thing infallible in the catholic church is when the pope makes an infallible statement(the last one was in the early 90s about the virgin mary ascending) EVERYTHING else in Catholicism is up for debate amongst it's piers, The best ways to worship, ethics, morality is accumulation of tradition over hundreds of years.... which is not necessarily ultimate truth, but is thought of as best way for community as a whole. This path isn't for everyone, and Catholic recognize that, a non-Catholic can go to heaven in Catholics eyes... there is the path of preisthood/marriage/etc.

There are disagreement amongst Catholics all the time, and it's OK as is meant to be that way. It is the Universal(catholic) church.

Only God can tell the difference. He's the only one who can read men's heart. He does, however, instruct us to judge the truth of a person's claims by the fruits - do they accord with what God tells us in the Bible? He says that if they don't, then the claims are not of God, even if they seem supernatural.