Theological Debate

[Ellron Silvertree]

I'd be wary of any claim that suggests that any physical, material object has some sort of spiritual power simply by mere fact of its existence. That isn't too say that something that has been blessed by a priest does not carry that blessing (thinking of Holy Water or some such here, or the Precious Body and Blood, but that's way beyond blessed), but I wouldn't hold a roof of pure silver and just expect it to ward off demons. Now, it could be that because pure silver is such a pure metal, it is often used as a vessel of the Eucharist and therefore is presumably blessed. And its use in the Church may be the basis for some folklore about silver having some innate power, but no, as far as I know there is no special anti-demon power attributed to silver in general.

And actually, I was recently listening to a talk about "How to Win the Culture War". It was really good. I think the concept of spiritual warfare can be confusing, sometimes, though, because it can mean different things to different people.

[NightBlade]

I believe that the only thing with power to repel demons is that which the Holy Spirit indwells. Meaning no object save for one, the Ark of the Covenant, which is no longer the case.

[Elytra]

Acts 19:12 says
So that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

[NightBlade]

Mm ok. A couple objects noted in the past.
Oh and I guess there was the Holy of Holies.. although once again, in the past

[Kirenyth Fireblade]

Raptor and Ellron have a point, but we need to be careful in assuming such things, as not only can it draw the focus from the source of the power, which is the holy spirit; but also charms, pendants and things like that are used in other religions to perform things like that. For instance, in ancient Chinese religion, demons and other spirits can only travel in straight lines, so they made their roofs curved in order to ward them off. Our faith is unlike other religions in many ways, this one being one of them. We don't need a pendant or a special element to protect us from spiritual attacks, because the power lives in us. 

Personally, I don't believe that "sacred objects" like holy water, and I definitely wouldn't try using silver to ward off demons.
James 4:7 says "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you."
To me, the only way to defend against attacks is studying the Word and getting closer to Christ, which strengthens the Holy Spirit inside me. Guided and empowered by Him, I can defend myself and others against Satan and his minions with the confidence that he will run.
To sum this up, the best way to send a demon running, whether from you or another person, is this: Defend with the shield of Faith, then raise the Sword of the Spirit to send them running for cover!

K, I'm done. sorry for the slightly over-eloquent rant.

EDIT: CNGoodhue: I got to talk to a believer from an Eastern Orthodox church (technically the closest thing to the early church), and turns out they don't see predestination as a big deal. I think the western church might have made a mistake in making it a big deal and therefore turning it into a 400+ year old debate. Like you said, it's best not to worry about the subject a lot.

[Ellron Silvertree]

I don't know much about eastern orthodoxy, so I'm curious--why do you say that they're technically the closest thing to the original church?

[Elytra]

Ellron Silvertree:

Here's my debate of Evolution V.S. Creation.

First off, You have accept all of the 'Evidence' for the point of view. I say this because if you don't accept all of a view, then you're not accepting the view. You've got some sort of Evolucreation.
Evolution has the Big Bang, and then the evolution of the creatures from microscopic organisms to what we see today. Creation, on the other hand, has a beginning with the Father, who made the earth in one day, and the creatures on the fifth to sixth day.

Evolucreation can't work because of what God says all throughout Genesis 1.
And God saw that is was good.
If Evolucreation had occurred, then the layers and layers of dead and decomposed fossils would be there. God said it was good, so therefore death would be good. But death isn't good, so that's a reason why Evolucreation can't work.

But before I go to far into this, I want to know what you believe, because I can't refute what I don't know. What is your view on this? 

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Hey Elytra, if you don't mind me jumping in here,

We've discussed this a bit before, and I don't really want to have a debate, but just ask you some questions, as I'm trying to figure out what the best view is. I personally don't believe in evolution, I believe in creation, although I currently think that the old-earth view seems more likely than young-earth from science, and that the seven days of Genesis are not a literal seven days--however this doesn't mean I believe in evolution, and if I see good evidence to show the young-earth view, then I will believe that. With that out of the way, would you call my current view Evolucreation? I do know a way around the "death is good" argument you used, since that would probably apply to my current view too, but I'll leave that for now.

And I'd like to hear any refutations you can make of what I currently think most likely, since I don't yet hold strongly to any old-earth/young earth view.

[NightBlade]

I take the Genesis account literally because #1 the scientific evidence is overwhelming for young earth, and #2 there is no compelling reason not to, except for claiming that random parts of Genesis are poetic. This is exegetically unprovable, and the burden of proof is on the claimant.

On another subject, I'd like to hear you guys' thoughts on my thread
heedtheprophecies.proboards.com/thread/55/scrolls-venaril-nightblade-third-scroll?page=2

[Lērtāen Miklul]

Sept 8, 2015 9:10:27 GMT Aviar Goldeneagle said:

Hey Elytra, if you don't mind me jumping in here,

We've discussed this a bit before, and I don't really want to have a debate, but just ask you some questions, as I'm trying to figure out what the best view is. I personally don't believe in evolution, I believe in creation, although I currently think that the old-earth view seems more likely than young-earth from science, and that the seven days of Genesis are not a literal seven days--however this doesn't mean I believe in evolution, and if I see good evidence to show the young-earth view, then I will believe that. With that out of the way, would you call my current view Evolucreation? I do know a way around the "death is good" argument you used, since that would probably apply to my current view too, but I'll leave that for now.

And I'd like to hear any refutations you can make of what I currently think most likely, since I don't yet hold strongly to any old-earth/young earth view.

This is a really good article about the implications of old earth vs. young earth.
And This talks about normal-length creation day vs. millions of years/other length creation days.

[Elytra]

Aviar wrote;
I believe in creation, although I currently think that the old-earth view seems more likely than young-earth from science, and that the seven days of Genesis are not a literal seven days--however this doesn't mean I believe in evolution, and if I see good evidence to show the young-earth view, then I will believe that.

First off, the word using in the Hebrew bible is yôm for ‘Day’. This word is used all through out the old testament. yôm should be take as a literal 24 hour day.
Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:17 give further knowledge.
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, but he rested on the seventh day. (20:8-11)
It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. (31:17)
Now, why would God write in the Bible that it was six days, but mean 1560 hour days?
Genisis is written straight forwardly, I don’t see any reason why I would assume that God would try and trick us to think it was longer than that. A day is a day.

Second, for the young earth/old earth view.

I calculated the ages of all the people in Jesus’ genealogy, and it turned out at 4422 years. If you add 2015 years since Jesus was born, it ends out at 6437 years since creation.

[NightBlade]

If you are being threatened for your life, I dunno about you but I would instinctively fight back. Logically the situation would be my life or theirs. But what if the final destination of your attacker's soul is in question? Would you sacrifice yourself for the sake of giving their eternal soul another chance to turn around, no matter how unlikely?
What if your best friend was also at stake though? Or your family?

As for me, it's hard to say for sure but if I'm not forced to immediately react with lethal force, having time to think, I think I woud make the sacrifice.
But when people I care about are involved? I'm an extremely loyal person by default...so as hard as it is to admit it, I don't care where this attacker came from or where he's going--I'm gonna send him there if he tries to hurt my people.

What about you guys?

[Elytra]

I agree with you. If it's just me, and my anger level isn't to high, then I'd make a sacrifice. But if people I care about are involved, I'd strike.

[NightBlade]

Anybody else got anything?

[WookieeElf]

NightBlade: It would be a tough call... If my family and friends are in danger, there's no question about it. The guy is going down. But just me and him...honestly, I'd still fight back. If God's ready to take the person to heaven or send them down below, then it's His call, not mine. I'd just be His instrument.

[CNGoodhue]

Same as WookieeElf. I'm a very protective person when it comes to my family/friends, and I'd still fight back if it was just a 1v1 fight.

[NightBlade]

I would fight obviously, but I wouldn't kill them.
In a friend/family situation though, "dead" wouldn't even begin to describe the state I would leave them in.

[CNGoodhue]

I really don't understand it when people ask Christians to explain their hate of homosexuality without using a biblical source. like no dude i'm a christian, i live by the bible and homosexuality is a sin

even if i weren't a christian i think that homosexuality is disgusting

[Ellron Silvertree]

The thing is, when talking with someone who doesn't believe in the Bible you need to be ready and willing to make a convincing argument based on reason and logic. You can't convince someone that it's raining outside by showing them a weather channel they don't trust. Bad analogy, I know, but it's the best I had on the spot.
Besides, I don't hate people with homosexual inclination, which is what most people actually think. The problem is less the attraction and more the following acts. Because the Church teaches that a marriage is meant for one man and one woman for the sake of procreation and to lead each other closer to Christ through a reflection of the Trinity, and that partaking in the marital act outside of marriage is a sin (for many reasons, but that's a different post), it is therefore also a sin for homosexually inclined individuals to partake in such acts with members of the same sex. It doesn't make them evil people and subhuman, but it damages there connection with God (and their loved ones, for that matter).

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

And you should probably also try to make an argument as to *why* you believe what the Bible says, and try to show them why you believe it's a reasonable source of authority.

[CNGoodhue]

I agree, Ellron.

Usually my reason to people for believing in the reliability of the Bible is that it's got over 25,000 manuscripts. Also, it's kinda more than a coincidence when 40 authors from different timelines and places somehow elaborated - without knowing what the other person is writing or has written - to create the Bible, and have it somehow all make sense and tell a story. My dad often uses the analogy that it's like putting 40 people in their own rooms and telling them to write a chapter to a book without giving them any information about what the other dude is writing about, and then having that book come out flawless and everything fits together. The chances of that are very, very small.

[Ellron Silvertree]

Fun fact, the Bible as we know it was not compiled into its final state until like the 4th century A.D. And it didn't just end up together. The books there are the ones that the Church determined to be truly divinely inspired. Of the New Testament, that is. The Old Testament is the Jewish Torah.

Avian: So I was talking with a friend the other day about traditional and charismatic Catholics, and while I don't like to stick people into black and white categories, I'm curious: would you say you're more in the traditional side or charismatic side? In terms of the celebration of the Mass, specifically. Über traditional being High Latin or bust, über charismatic being nothing matters but the praise and worship music and the Mass just isn't complete without it. xP

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Ellron Silvertree

So I was talking with a friend the other day about traditional and charismatic Catholics, and while I don't like to stick people into black and white categories, I'm curious: would you say you're more in the traditional side or charismatic side? In terms of the celebration of the Mass, specifically. Über traditional being High Latin or bust, über charismatic being nothing matters but the praise and worship music and the Mass just isn't complete without it. xP

I guess I'd be somewhere in between. I'm kind of the, well, I guess you could say "common" Catholic, going to the Novus Ordo Mass. I do like the Latin Mass though, and go to that occasionally too.

There are some "über traditionalists" who think Vatican II "changed" everything, and don't recognise the Novus Ordo Mass as valid, but that, of course, I don't believe is true; and Vatican II didn't "change" anything, but just restated it in a more modern form.

All Mass types end up being basically the same, no matter what rite you're in, since they all have the Holy Eucharist.

What about you?

[Ellron Silvertree]

I'd probably say the same. I mean, I'm a little bit more on the traditional side in terms of music preference at Mass, but that's about it. I've never actually been to a Latin Mass, but they have them fairly regularly around here so I might go.

[CNGoodhue]

I have a topic of debate. It might be kinda tough, idk. If a Christian commits suicide, do they go to He11? I personally don't believe they do, but I want to see what you guys think on the subject.

[Kirenyth Fireblade]

You picked quite a topic, CNG.
I think they would go to heaven, because God said nothing could separate us from his love. Including us.
Another issue might be whether or not they would succeed. They could certainly attempt to commit suicide, but they wouldn't die if God didn't want them to.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Well again this goes back to whether or not salvation can be lost. I believe salvation can be lost by committing a mortal sin. If the suicide fulfilled all the conditions for a mortal sin then I believe that person would not end up saved. However, not every suicide would fulfill all the conditions and so there would be good reason to hope that the person would still be saved.

I guess it basically goes back to whether or not a person can lose their salvation once they've got it.

[CNGoodhue]

I've heard a lot about mortal sins, but I still don't quite understand. What exactly is a mortal sin, and what is the basis of the belief? Scriptures that support, etc.? I just honestly don't know anything about mortal sins. Lol.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Oct 30, 2015 18:21:50 GMT CNGoodhue said:

I've heard a lot about mortal sins, but I still don't quite understand. What exactly is a mortal sin, and what is the basis of the belief? Scriptures that support, etc.? I just honestly don't know anything about mortal sins. Lol.

Well I guess someone who believes in Predestination wouldn't agree with how Catholics define a Mortal Sin, , but anyway. For a sin to be Mortal it must fulfill three conditions. These first is grave matter: the sin must be very serious--murder for example. The second is full knowledge: the person committing the sin must know it's a serious matter. And the third is full consent: they know it's a real serious sin that God wouldn't want them to commit, but they go ahead and do it anyway. So basically if those three are fulfilled, it's a mortal sin.

Those three conditions are very much based upon Scripture, although maybe you wouldn't say they're "explicitly" laid out 100% clear. First there's 1John 5:16-17, which says that "all wrongdoing is sin, but there is a sin which is not mortal." This seems to me to be saying that some sin is worse than others, hence the "grave matter" condition of mortal sin. There are other Scriptures as well that show this same thing--that there is sin that will seperate us from God, and sin that will damage our relationship with God, but not cut us off. (e.g. Matt. 5:19--you can break the "least" of the commandments and still be in the Kingdom of God, although you will be the least in it-- and Matt. 5:22,28-29--tells us there are sins that will get us to He11 if we do not repent.) There are others too, but that's a couple.

Although I guess it's important to add, that if you repent of a mortal sin you've committed, God will forgive you.

Hopefully that explains it for you. If you've got any more questions about it I'd be happy to try and answer them. 

[NightBlade]

Who can define what is serious and what isn't? I mean, let's face it, we've all "murdered" according to Exodus, probably on more than one occasion. Have we confessed each individual time we eve had a thought of hatred against someone?
I find that a startling number of doctrines are built upon a basis of assumption and human definition.
Also, construction bastions of doctrine around isolated clusters of verses is also tricky territory.