Well, it seemed like blame to me. "Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?", sounds awfully like disfavor and reproof.
Pardon me, but aren't you one of the most religious posters on FSA? Do you not cite the bible often? What am I missing, here?
Without seeing a full transcript of what was said it's hard to comment. It is possible that Benedict may question why God allowed something to happen, and disapprove of historical events and blame God for them happening. But these are personal matters. He is not infallible in such cases. He is completely capable of errently placing blame on God. As long as he is not defining doctrine that teaches that God failed there is nothing remarkable about this. It reminds me of a story from the Acts of the Apostles where Peter teaches that the Gentiles can be saved through Christ, but then refuses to eat with them. Paul rebukes him for this hypocricy. He was rebuked not for what he taught, but for his public conduct. Maybe Benedict needs to be rebuked in a similar way, but without seeing the full context in which he was speaking I can't say for sure.
red you just opened a can of worms. Deek and other evangelicals like to pretend Bible based Christianity isn't religion even though it meets every known definition of the word.
You say The whole premise fo your arguement is crap man. You are claiming the rules you follow are some how less man made or more from God than someone elses and that in fact makes them not rules at all. So therefore you are doing God's will better than other people who are plain religious and follow rules that are more man made and less from God. If it makes you, Ted Dibiase, and Kirk Cameron feel better to say that Bible based Christianity isn't a religion go ahead. I'll just continue to roll my eyes.
What rules do I follow? My justification is based on the cross alone. Your justification is based on your mass attendance, reconciliation status, communion status, and even then you can't know if you are truly saved. You only have the hope. That is in direct contradiction to the Bible of course, but you know that. No need to quote it here. Roll on.
Explain. The Cross is simply the modern symbol for Christianity, a major religion. The first symbol was the Fish, but somewhere along the way the Roman gallows was substituted. The Catholics even embellish it with a corpse. But they are all just symbols. What rules and justification do you speak of?
is that a corpse on the crucifix? i thought that was a jesus who had just been crucified and was in pain. (yunno, the pain that was forgiving our sins).
The Bible is your cathechism. You base your religious or "non-religious" practices on its teachings. Religion is not determined by how hierarchal or loose structured your beliefs are. Is the evangelical religion less structuted than the Catholic one? Yep. Is it still relgion? Yep. Your justification in the cross is no different than that which the Church teaches. If I am saved it is through Christ's actions on calvary, not through anything I will ever do. And anything I do to take part in Christ's redemptive effort is a result of God's grace. My only part in this is accepting the grace. I say you stating that you are saved is in contradiction to the Bible. Catholics work out their salvation on their knees and trembling as St. Paul says we should. Why would he say that if we were to know our salvation?
