Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Warrior_Monk on September 30, 2009, 02:10:04 PM
-
just curious, what's your church's denomination?
Evangelical.
-
Non-denominational and proud of it.
-
There isn't a denomination I could call myself a part of, sadly.
-
United Brethren in Christ.
-
My church is Lutheran in name, but it is far different than any other Lutheran church I've been to. We left the ELCA several years ago due to strong differences of opinion between our leadership and the ELCA. But we would still consider ourselves both Evangelical and Lutheran.
-
Presbyterian to the core. The only place my beliefs differ is that I allow room that "the elect" may not be all who get into Heaven.
-
Southern Baptist, despite being a native New Jerseyan.
-
United Methodist, mainly
-
I attend a Southern Baptist Church, but my Denomination is Christian.
-
I attend a Southern Baptist Church, but my Denomination is Christian.
More like your Numberation is Christian and your Denomination is SBC (which is mine as wekk ;D)
-
I think the church I go to is Assembly of God...but no funny stuff. My pastor is really great; his sermons are interesting and I often learn a lot. I don't think I would label myself any particular denomination.
As for my belief system, Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected, and to be saved you must have faith in God and repent. The rest is trivial.
-
non-denominational.
-
Non-denominational.
-
looool what some followed Redemptionism? :laugh:
-
Truly, Non-Demoninational (oh wait did I spell that wrong? I meant Denominational ;D)
But if you need to put a title to it.........
Messianic Jewish Congregation fits us best.
-
I'm currently studying the doctrines of the Church before converting, which I plan to do soon. My beliefs are probably best described as neo-orthodox, though I try to understand the teachings of the Church and hope that my beliefs will one day be in line with hers.
I attended Parish Presbyterian Church when I have the time, which is not often.
-
you do know the church is a term meaning every born again christian in the world don't ya?
-
you do know the church is a term meaning every born again christian in the world don't ya?
You do know that its also a term for the organisation set into place by the apostles and continued by their successors?
-
you do know the church is a term meaning every born again christian in the world don't ya?
we all know what we're talking about. yes, that's the true form of "The Church" but that's not apart of this subject. please don't sidetrack.
-
you do know the church is a term meaning every born again christian in the world don't ya?
we all know what we're talking about. yes, that's the true form of "The Church" but that's not apart of this subject. please don't sidetrack.
You're telling us what the "true form of the church" is now, Plato? I was going by the original meaning of the word.
-
you do know the church is a term meaning every born again christian in the world don't ya?
Good point, but you boys play nice, or I'll turn this thread right around and we'll eat peanutbutter instead of TacoBell!
"Talkin' "bout Denominations
people try to put us down
Talkin' "bout Denominations
just because we .....
Ok, independant
-
my church is i believe Southern Baptist and has a "Friend Day" coming up this sunday
-
my church is i believe Southern Baptist and has a "Friend Day" coming up this sunday
OOOOOO Friend Day. will there be food? I'll come if there is and if you pay me a million dollars for air fare and time I should be spending on school.. so long as it's not tacos
-
Knock it off guys. Back to the topic.
-
Church of Christ (non-instrumental)
-
Lutheran
-
I grew up non-denominational Protestant, but I'm currently in the process of looking into Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism.
I'm currently studying the doctrines of the Church before converting, which I plan to do soon. My beliefs are probably best described as neo-orthodox, though I try to understand the teachings of the Church and hope that my beliefs will one day be in line with hers.
you do know the church is a term meaning every born again christian in the world don't ya?
You do know that its also a term for the organisation set into place by the apostles and continued by their successors?
*sigh*
Why can't you just be specific instead of arrogantly displaying your knowledge of technical terminology when most of the people here don't know what you're talking about?
Aside from that, you do realize that there's been a gigantic dispute as to which body is the true continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church ever since 1054, right? I'd hate to assume that someone as smart as you could have forgotten the first millennium of church history, but that little tidbit appears to have slipped your mind. I don't even know whether you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, since the way you described it could have indicated either one.
-
Society of Friends
-
Society of Friends
Are you seriously a Quaker?
-
I grew up non-denominational Protestant, but I'm currently in the process of looking into Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism.
I'm currently studying the doctrines of the Church before converting, which I plan to do soon. My beliefs are probably best described as neo-orthodox, though I try to understand the teachings of the Church and hope that my beliefs will one day be in line with hers.
you do know the church is a term meaning every born again christian in the world don't ya?
You do know that its also a term for the organisation set into place by the apostles and continued by their successors?
*sigh*
Why can't you just be specific instead of arrogantly displaying your knowledge of technical terminology when most of the people here don't know what you're talking about?
Aside from that, you do realize that there's been a gigantic dispute as to which body is the true continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church ever since 1054, right? I'd hate to assume that someone as smart as you could have forgotten the first millennium of church history, but that little tidbit appears to have slipped your mind. I don't even know whether you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, since the way you described it could have indicated either one.
The only possibly "arrogant" terms I've used here have been "neo-orthodoxy" (which I'm sure most people who doesn't know what neo-orthodoxy probably doesn't know the major beliefs of the other denominations and should google them) and the "form of the church" joke, which should be elucidatory even without a knowledge of Plato's beliefs.
I was referring to both Churches. "The body of Christ has two lungs", even though they may not currently be in harmony with each other (though the excommunications were revoked in 1965).
I support your looking into the Eastern Orthodox side of Christianity; in many places it is closer to the traditions of the apostles than Roman Catholicism. I prefer Thomism and Western philosophy; thus, Roman Catholicism seems like the best place for me. Many early church fathers would have had a problem with these views, most notably Tertullian and St. Paul, though I think the Roman Catholic church has evolved past their objections.
What's your opinion on the whole katharsis, theoria, theosis business?
-
I'm anti-denominational personally. But for the sake of briefness my beliefs allign mostly a Messianic Karaite Judaism.
-
I'm anti-denominational personally. But for the sake of briefness my beliefs allign mostly a Messianic Karaite Judaism.
Is that Christian or an off-shoot?
-
I'm anti-denominational personally. But for the sake of briefness my beliefs allign mostly a Messianic Karaite Judaism.
Is that Christian or an off-shoot?
Neither, I don't like religious slurs. I just believe the whole Tanakh and the Messianic Texts as well.
-
The only possibly "arrogant" terms I've used here have been "neo-orthodoxy" (which I'm sure most people who doesn't know what neo-orthodoxy probably doesn't know the major beliefs of the other denominations and should google them) and the "form of the church" joke, which should be elucidatory even without a knowledge of Plato's beliefs.
I was referring to your general attitude and refusal to elucidate when asked what you meant. When you're cryptic and people ask you to explain yourself, all too often you are either obnoxiously snarky or just generally elusive, and it begins to grate. Sorry for exploding, though.
I support your looking into the Eastern Orthodox side of Christianity; in many places it is closer to the traditions of the apostles than Roman Catholicism. I prefer Thomism and Western philosophy; thus, Roman Catholicism seems like the best place for me. Many early church fathers would have had a problem with these views, most notably Tertullian and St. Paul, though I think the Roman Catholic church has evolved past their objections.
What's your opinion on the whole katharsis, theoria, theosis business?
As far as I understand it, it makes sense. I see the journey outlined there in all the holy people I've met and read about—the rejection and purification of sin through Christ ultimately leads toward the fulfillment of human nature by perfect union with God. I particularly like the focus on living a holy life after salvation; one of my bigger issues with Protestantism is its tendency towards "cheap grace". For the Orthodox, atonement must be followed by a pursuit of knowledge and of righteousness, or it is utterly meaningless in this life.
Plus, who wouldn't love Athanasius? "The Son of God became man, that we might become god"... :)
-
Society of Friends
Are you seriously a Quaker?
http://www.friendschurchsw.org/ (http://www.friendschurchsw.org/) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Friends_International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Friends_International) Basically, maybe I should have said Evangelical Friends Southwest then.
-
Plus, who wouldn't love Athanasius? "The Son of God became man, that we might become god"...
I didn't know that quote was attributed to him, though I've heard it before. It's not an inconceivable idea. If Jesus was divine and the "son of God" and we are called the "children of God", the eventual quasi-divinity of man isn't hard to extrapolate.
I think this idea is evident in St. Augustine as well (he certainly uses the words "katharisis" and ascesis"), especially the goal of "reunification with the One". It also makes the necessity of a purgatory make a lot more sense, especially with the Plotinus-inspired conception of the "chain of being".
I'm anti-denominational personally. But for the sake of briefness my beliefs allign mostly a Messianic Karaite Judaism.
Is that Christian or an off-shoot?
Neither, I don't like religious slurs. I just believe the whole Tanakh and the Messianic Texts as well.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Messianic Texts", typically, that refers to O.T. prophesy.
When I say "Christian" I mean in terms of what was decided to be the necessary beliefs of a Christian by the council of Nicene (sorry Baptists).
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
-
I didn't know that quote was attributed to him, though I've heard it before.
Yeah, it's in On The Incarnation. You should check it out sometime; it's a short read and remains one of my favorite Church Father texts ever. :)
-
I didn't know that quote was attributed to him, though I've heard it before.
Yeah, it's in On The Incarnation. You should check it out sometime; it's a short read and remains one of my favorite Church Father texts ever. :)
Same guy who wrote the Vita of St. Antony, right?
-
I think I can shed a little light on what Arch Angel is saying. By Tanakh, he is referring to the Torah (first 5 books, Genesis through Deuteronomy), Neviem (Prophets), Ketuvim (writings like Ruth and Ester. Basically the "Old Testament". By "Messianic texts" he is referring to those books often called the "New Testament" or B'rit Chadasha (Covenant Renewed) or "Apostolic Writings". There are currently no Denominational Divisions in the Messianic Communities that I know of. When he calls himself a Karite, that simply means that he does not hold to the traditions of the typical Jewish Faith, his Beliefs are based on scripture and scripture alone.
AA, if I have misspoken on your behalf, please forgive me.
On a further note. I do believe that AA would be considered a Christian by most Christians. Messianic Judaism (Karite or otherwise) does acknowledge Yeshua (Jesus) as both Messiah and in most cases God in the flesh (although I have met some who disagree with that). He is our only way to our ultimate goal of eternal relationship with the Father. However, we also understand that, in the ministry of Yeshua, He never broke the Torah (often translated "law"). As a matter of fact if you read Matthew 5:17-18 you will understand His stand on the Torah and the Prophets. The only practices He ever condemned (sp?) were the act of making the "traditions of men of greater importance than the law of God".
-
I attend an Assemblies of God church but my theological leanings are a combination of Reformed Presbyterian and Baptist.
-
I didn't know that quote was attributed to him, though I've heard it before.
Yeah, it's in On The Incarnation. You should check it out sometime; it's a short read and remains one of my favorite Church Father texts ever. :)
Same guy who wrote the Vita of St. Antony, right?
Yeah, same guy.
-
Plus, who wouldn't love Athanasius? "The Son of God became man, that we might become god"... :)
It's not an inconceivable idea. If Jesus was divine and the "son of God" and we are called the "children of God", the eventual quasi-divinity of man isn't hard to extrapolate.
It may not be hard to extrapolate, but it is wrong. Humans do not become gods (contrary to Mormon teaching). We are to imitate Christ, but that doesn't mean that we become divine. God is God, and man is man, we shouldn't get those confused.
-
No, theosis differs radically from the Mormon doctrine of deification, to the point of an utter lack of any commonality. Man cannot ever become God or even a god, with respect to their essence of being (i.e. ontologically). St. Peter says that we have become "partakers of the divine nature" (II Peter 1), and St. Athanasius comments that this enables us to "become by grace what God is by nature"—that is, holy. St. Thomas notes that "full participation in divinity is humankind's true beatitude and the destiny of human life". The incarnation of the divine Λόγος—the second person of the Trinity—in the person of Jesus Christ not only imparts to us grace for the atonement of sin (justification, or katharsis), but it also elevates our human nature to the divine (sanctification, which means "becoming holy", or theosis). The incarnation of Christ united the human and divine natures in one person, and thus we can now experience a closer fellowship with God than even Adam and Eve could have before they fell.
Theosis, then, is not becoming God or a god; it is the process of becoming divine.
-
I think I can shed a little light on what Arch Angel is saying. By Tanakh, he is referring to the Torah (first 5 books, Genesis through Deuteronomy), Neviem (Prophets), Ketuvim (writings like Ruth and Ester. Basically the "Old Testament". By "Messianic texts" he is referring to those books often called the "New Testament" or B'rit Chadasha (Covenant Renewed) or "Apostolic Writings". There are currently no Denominational Divisions in the Messianic Communities that I know of. When he calls himself a Karite, that simply means that he does not hold to the traditions of the typical Jewish Faith, his Beliefs are based on scripture and scripture alone.
AA, if I have misspoken on your behalf, please forgive me.
On a further note. I do believe that AA would be considered a Christian by most Christians. Messianic Judaism (Karite or otherwise) does acknowledge Yeshua (Jesus) as both Messiah and in most cases God in the flesh (although I have met some who disagree with that). He is our only way to our ultimate goal of eternal relationship with the Father. However, we also understand that, in the ministry of Yeshua, He never broke the Torah (often translated "law"). As a matter of fact if you read Matthew 5:17-18 you will understand His stand on the Torah and the Prophets. The only practices He ever condemned (sp?) were the act of making the "traditions of men of greater importance than the law of God".
No misspeaking on your part. In fact I think you worded it pretty well, thanks :)