If the Pope Dies, and goes to Hell..

[Said1]

Is equating Christianity with other religions providing benefits to Christianity? Nope, not in my opinion. In my opinion, it waters down Christianity.

But hey, that is JUST my OPINION.

How was he equating other religions with Christianity?

 

[Annie]

Insinuation is uncontrollable. (shrug). That happens on the part of the reader.

It would seem you label 'disagreement' as 'bashing', eh?

-=D=- respectfully, not going to get into a hot disagreement with you. Lots of folk here, including Free have been pretty up front with their beliefs, at least trying to have others understand.

You have managed to 'condemn by innuendo' then claim it's the reader's fault. You find that 'enlightening?' I suppose it's like your 'concern' about the Pope's soul, like you can judge, on his deathbed?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

No, not at all. You, D and everyone else should believe as they choose to. Just respect the fact you may be wrong and admit others MAY be correct. It's easy. It doesn't mean he nor anyone else need to give up their belief.
Everyone just needs to face the fact that many don't believe the same and no one can prove they're right. So thump on, but it gets ya nowhere.

The problem with this is religious belief is not based on knowledge, that's why it's called faith. It is possible to respect others beliefs, but if you "admit you may be wrong", that's not faith in your religion and makes it pretty pointless.

 

[Said1]

The problem with this is religious belief is not based on knowledge, that's why it's called faith. It is possible to respect others beliefs, but if you "admit you may be wrong", that's not faith in your religion and makes it pretty pointless.

Very true. Interpretation is another thing though! :

 

[freeandfun1]

How was he equating other religions with Christianity?

I have writtten this in this thread already. By accepting the "blessing" of a Shiva, he is insinuating that a Shiva has the "ability" to bless G-d's representative on earth (as the Catholics view the Pope). Only G-d can bless his representative. Therefore, the Pope, in my opinion, was violating G-d's first and most important commandment "You shall have NO other gods before Me".

The same could be said of him kissing the Q'ran. The Q'ran denies Christ's deity. It denies that Christ is the saviour. The Catholic Church was founded on that very premise. So by kissing the Q'ran, he is exhibiting respect for a book that condemns his own beliefs. By those two actions he is insinutating that Hinduism and Islam are on an equal par with Christianity. If I were a Muslim and I saw that, I would tell anybody talking to me about Christ, "hey, the man you claim I *need* Christ, but the man you claim as G-d's reprsentative here on earth apparently feels our book is worthy of praise and so, he must consider it right, therefore, I don't need Christ to be saved". Again, that is just my opinion. Do you think a Muslim would kiss the New Testament? Do you think a Jew would? No. Because doing so would be akin to acknowledging a book they don't believe in. It would contradict their faith.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Is equating Christianity with other religions providing benefits to Christianity? Nope, not in my opinion. In my opinion, it waters down Christianity.

But hey, that is JUST my OPINION.

I don't think he was equating anything with Christianity.

If I go to a Catholic church with a friend, I'm going to respect what they do there and I'll go through the motions. In the end, not being Catholic, it won't mean anything to me. I knell down, they give me a cookie, that's it. I think all he did was respect others beliefs, but that doesn't mean he compromised his own.

 

[freeandfun1]

I don't think he was equating anything with Christianity.

If I go to a Catholic church with a friend, I'm going to respect what they do there and I'll go through the motions. In the end, not being Catholic, it won't mean anything to me. I knell down, they give me a cookie, that's it. I think all he did was respect others beliefs, but that doesn't mean he compromised his own.

There is a difference.... Catholocism also accepts Christ as the one and only Saviour. Neither one of those religions do. For the most part, Catholics, Methodists, etc. believe the same thing, they just have some doctrinal differences. These two religions are not even close.

 

[Annie]

I don't think he was equating anything with Christianity.

If I go to a Catholic church with a friend, I'm going to respect what they do there and I'll go through the motions. In the end, not being Catholic, it won't mean anything to me. I knell down, they give me a cookie, that's it. I think all he did was respect others beliefs, but that doesn't mean he compromised his own.

Actually, in a Catholic Church non-Catholics, even Christians should NOT take communion. It's an acknowledged difference in belief systems.

 

[Said1]

I have writtten this in this thread already. By accepting the "blessing" of a Shiva, he is insinuating that a Shiva has the "ability" to bless G-d's representative on earth (as the Catholics view the Pope). Only G-d can bless his representative. Therefore, the Pope, in my opinion, was violating G-d's first and most important commandment "You shall have NO other gods before Me".

The same could be said of him kissing the Q'ran. The Q'ran denies Christ's deity. It denies that Christ is the saviour. The Catholic Church was founded on that very premise. So by kissing the Q'ran, he is exhibiting respect for a book that condemns his own beliefs. By those two actions he is insinutating that Hinduism and Islam are on an equal par with Christianity. If I were a Muslim and I saw that, I would tell anybody talking to me about Christ, "hey, the man you claim I *need* Christ, but the man you claim as G-d's reprsentative here on earth apparently feels our book is worthy of praise and so, he must consider it right, therefore, I don't need Christ to be saved". Again, that is just my opinion. Do you think a Muslim would kiss the New Testament? Do you think a Jew would? No. Because doing so would be akin to acknowledging a book they don't believe in. It would contradict their faith.

I understand what you are saying, and in part (very small part), don't agree. But that's ok. I didn't see your earlier post, was not being arugmentative.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Actually, in a Catholic Church non-Catholics, even Christians should NOT take communion. It's an acknowledged difference in belief systems.

I was just using that as an example. Point is you can do something to respect anothers belief, but that doesn't mean you are doing anything to disrespect your own beliefs.

I guess it all depends on how you look at it. I live in an area that is heavily Baptist, but what this group of Baptists deem acceptable isn't going to be what this other group of Baptists deem acceptable.

 

[freeandfun1]

I was just using that as an example. Point is you can do something to respect anothers belief, but that doesn't mean you are doing anything to disrespect your own beliefs.

I guess it all depends on how you look at it. I live in an area that is heavily Baptist, but what this group of Baptists deem acceptable isn't going to be what this other group of Baptists deem acceptable.

as an EX-Southern Baptist, that is the problem with the Baptist Church in my opinion. Each Church forms their own beliefs/interpretations and that is dangerous in any religion.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

There is a difference.... Catholocism also accepts Christ as the one and only Saviour. Neither one of those religions do. For the most part, Catholics, Methodists, etc. believe the same thing, they just have some doctrinal differences. These two religions are not even close.

All right then...If I found myself with a group of Muslims... Buddists... Druids... take your pick, I could respect what they believe, that doesn't mean I would be giving up my own beliefs.

As far as Pope John Paul II, I don't think a couple of things like this should overshadow a literal lifetime of service.

 

[Mr. P]

If one admits their belief system may be wrong, then they are giving up their belief. Don't you get that? How can one say, "I am right, yet I might be wrong"? That makes no sense at all. Especially when you are speaking with a Christian. Christianity is based on faith and faith alone. To admit you "might be wrong" would mean you have no faith. Therefore, you would be giving up your faith and therefore, your beliefs. You have your beliefs, I have mine, -=d=- has his, etc., etc. One can say they believe the other is wrong without giving up their beliefs. But one CANNOT say, "I might be wrong and you be right" and claim they are still holding onto their beliefs. It would make no sense at all and then, people like you would tell -=d=-, "see, you don't know since you are admitting I might be right".

I admit the title of the thread was, in my opinion, confrontational. But just because the title was confrontational, that does not mean you have to attack everybody that is Christian because of what one Christian wrote or asked.

I like all the twists and turns...Faith yep, that's it, but faith alone does not make truth.
I may admit I may be wrong but still hold to my beliefs or faith that I'm not. I don't have a problem with that. Thumpers do, because in my opinion they are very insecure in their faith and can not deal with the fact they may be wrong.

Oh, I've meant nothing I've said as an attack on Christianity.

 

[Annie]

I was just using that as an example. Point is you can do something to respect anothers belief, but that doesn't mean you are doing anything to disrespect your own beliefs.

I guess it all depends on how you look at it. I live in an area that is heavily Baptist, but what this group of Baptists deem acceptable isn't going to be what this other group of Baptists deem acceptable.

I do understand and didn't mean to be argumentative. When I go into another House of Worship, I conform to their rules, UNLESS there would be something that would be against my beliefs. I would NOT say anything that would be 'wrong' in my church, but certainly would not feel compelled under any circumstances to stand up and start telling them why they are wrong. Now if something was so outrageous, I might leave, but still would not find it necessary to rail against the congregants, not saying I wouldn't say a prayer or two for them.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

as an EX-Southern Baptist, that is the problem with the Baptist Church in my opinion. Each Church forms their own beliefs/interpretations and that is dangerous in any religion.

Believe me, you're not telling me anything. I live in a town of about 2,700 people and there are roughly 12 Baptists churches in the area. The only thing they all seem to agree on is if you haven't been going to their church every Sunday for 30 years, you are the devil.

 

[Said1]

I like all the twists and turns...Faith yep, that's it, but faith alone does not make truth.
I may admit I may be wrong but still hold to my beliefs or faith that I'm not. I don't have a problem with that. Thumpers do, because in my opinion they are very insecure in their faith and can not deal with the fact they may be wrong.

Oh, I've meant nothing I've said as an attack on Christianity.

Wow, are you sure about that? Evangicals insecure....NOT. Not the guys/gals here anyway.

 

[freeandfun1]

All right then...If I found myself with a group of Muslims... Buddists... Druids... take your pick, I could respect what they believe, that doesn't mean I would be giving up my own beliefs.

As far as Pope John Paul II, I don't think a couple of things like this should overshadow a literal lifetime of service.

Maybe my point isn't clear....

I myself have attended a Muslim wedding, I have been to Buddhist Temples while my wife says her prayers, etc. But attending and participating are two different things.

 

[freeandfun1]

I like all the twists and turns...Faith yep, that's it, but faith alone does not make truth.
I may admit I may be wrong but still hold to my beliefs or faith that I'm not. I don't have a problem with that. Thumpers do, because in my opinion they are very insecure in their faith and can not deal with the fact they may be wrong.

Oh, I've meant nothing I've said as an attack on Christianity.

There are no twists nor turns in what I wrote. You seem to be the only one that feels threatened. And if you will, I ask that you stop calling Evangelicals "thumpers". It is very disrespectful. I have not called you anything disrespectful, so I ask you do the same. Faith is faith. You cannot change the definition of faith no matter how much you might like to. I cannot help it if you don't have any convictions. That's your problem. Not mine.

 

[Mr. P]

Wow, are you sure about that? Thumpers insecure....NOT. Not the guys/gals here anyway.

Yes I'm sure...confrontation of any opposing religious view is a sure sign of insecurity in ones own beliefs IMO. Discussion of beliefs on the other hand is different.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Maybe my point isn't clear....

I myself have attended a Muslim wedding, I have been to Buddhist Temples while my wife says her prayers, etc. But attending and participating are two different things.

No, you made your point, I was just making mine. I understand your viewpoint, and I understand how you don't agree with mine. I'll just agree to disagree.