|
|
#251
10-14-2004, 09:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A quick FYI
Kevin, this is a sticky one.
The Faith vs. Works question occupies a lot of space in Christian literature. However, I don't *think the Catholic Church says that you are SAVED through works. This would be in contradiction to known scripture. What most Christians say is that you are saved by Grace alone, through Faith in God and His Son. Works is the OUTWARD expression of the inner change in man, which takes place AFTER he has been saved. They are both important--but as far as salvation itself--no one can earn it. EPHESIANS 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast." JAMES 2:26 "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." 
|
|
#252
10-14-2004, 09:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A quick FYI
[ QUOTE ]
What most Christians say is that you are saved by Grace alone, through Faith in God and His Son. [/ QUOTE ] This position is held universally(as far as I know) by Protestants. Catholics do not hold with this. Most quotes offered in support of the Protestant position come from the writings of St. Paul. For this reason, I have heard one Catholic refer to those who argue "faith alone" as "Paulists" (as distinguished from Christians).
|
|
#253
10-14-2004, 10:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A quick FYI
2 PETER 1:1
"For this very reason, make every effort to ADD to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge..." All the same my brother, it's a bit like arguing the old Chicken vs. Egg question. I think that Protestants and Catholics both agree that one must have both faith and works. This is a vital question theologically, but as it applies to living the Christian life, and experiencing God's Presence in it, I am sure that many on both sides of the fence will get there in the end. [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
|
|
#257
10-17-2004, 09:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pascal\'s failure
"This kind of personal attack is not warranted. Does anyone here really doubt that David is far on the right of the intellectual curve? At least in the realm of math and reasoning, he's obviously about as strong as people get."
David is a poker genius, to be sure. His logical and mathematical skills are merely extraordinary.
|
|
#258
10-23-2004, 11:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
the opinion of a 19 year old jackass
Heres my opinion, but im sure no one cares. Anyone who is reading this has already made up their mind and is not going to change their beliefs because of KungFuSandwich's post, but hey, what the heck.
I personally think that the best evidence of a higher power is the existence of logic. I personally cant believe that the few thoughts that come out of my head is the result of a chemical reactions or are reactions to stimuli from the enviroment, but even if I am wrong I dont understand the point of this arguement I at least understand why christians feel the need to try to convert people. I know its annoying to be given that little pamphlet but I at least appreciat that they are trying to save my soul. What bothers me is the conviction that many athiests have in debunking religion. I dont understand the need to spread the belief that other peoples beliefs are wrong. I dont understand what good comes out of it. If you believe that when you die you decompose, then why does it matter if others agree with you? Even if all religions were totally without basis doesnt some good come out of them? I understand that this argument is flawed since good is usually defined by the moral codes of religions, but if faith gives someone comfort and causes them to be a better person, what benifit does society get from changing this persons mind? If the athiest is right, the persons beliefs are irrelivent and they will rot no matter what. But if the religious persons belief is correct the advantage of keeping that belief would be huge. (wouldnt it be something like having to catch two to a flush to win, but no one made you pay for it. Your odds of winning may be small, but why would you fold?) I guess what really bothers me about this arguement is that it seems pointless to me. I doubt David is going to change his mind and Im fairly sure he's not going to change anyone's mind. Also it seems to me that both sides must have some degree of uncertainty to have this argument, but neither side seems to admit the possibility that they could be wrong. Im believe that there is a God, but I cannot give positive proof that God exists. However, I think it is impossible to prove with any degree of certainty that there is no God. One of the cornerstones of the Christian faith is that we cannot fully understand God, that we are to simple and he is to complex. To me, this seems to parrallel the scientific idea that there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science. Maybe I'm way off base, but please tell me what you think. Heres a shovel......Can you dig? [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
|
|
#260
10-24-2004, 01:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
the reply of a 20 year old jackass
You are right in that the whole argument is pretty much futile, since it doesn't really matter.
I am athiest but I do appreciate that some nice people want to save my soul. But wrong or not, religion as a whole is a very very good thing. People are selfish, period. Without some doctrine to tell them that they will live eternity in some hell if they are bad, then most people would be bad. Yeah, we have laws to try and keeps things under control, but a five year sentence is easier to stomach than eternity in hell. Of course you can just go to your preist and get forgiveness and a Hail Mary or whatever and you're good. Clearly Jesus died so you could get off easy, right? But the point is, with all its craziness and contradictions and blind faith and all the things I think is wrong with it, religion is still a necessity. It keeps people good, and it provides a purpose for those who don't feel they have one. I personally have no problem comprehending the idea that my brain works with all the chemicals and whatever else is in it. You ever look into swarm intelligence? By themselves a bunch of little things (bees or ants or shoot, like Michael Crichton wrote about, little nano computers) are useless, but put them in a group and they start to connect and use eachother and -- well, it's the basis for how nueroconnections work. Logic develops. I may not fully understand how it works, but just because I can't explain it doesn't mean it's inexplicable or "irriducably complex." That's bullshit. And you're right, we can't prove or disprove the existance of a being like God, but there is a maxim I go by which is basically, "the simplist and most reasonable explanation is probably the right one." Just because I can't disprove the idea that a black hole is filled entirely with jelly doughnuts (because no information can travel out) doesn't mean that it's logical or right to believe so. And just because I can't disprove the existance of an omnipotant and wonderful creator of everything doesn't mean that that idea is logical or even close to right. I don't know how the universe works, and I never will, but that doesn't mean I can't learn more and more. And it certainly doesn't mean that necessarily the universe was created by some God. Religion is a great idea, and it's worked in many cases and been a dismal failure in others. Oh well. Life goes on... until it doesn't. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
