TSR Christian Apologetics Society
Scroll to see replies
FireDeuce
Why can I confess to Jesus what I have done? That's what I do at the moment because I have no Church to go to. I do have a Church but everything about them goes over my head. I went to a well good Church near Gatwick once, but that's a bit far away..
Jesus is amazing.
If you confess directly to God through Christ you had better make very sure you are perfectly contrite since God is not a lover of hollow words. Perfect contrition is not required when confessing to a priest; the Spirit works objectively through the sacrament.
I note your 20 is in London. I'm sure you have more churches to choose from than you can shake a stick at.
Howard: what's perfect contrition? I never actually understood that. (Despite being RC and all. Oh the shame 
)a
p.s. I'm back! sorry for the absence. I know I'm supposed to reply to some thread somewhere...I'll go search. ok end of ot.
)ap.s. I'm back! sorry for the absence. I know I'm supposed to reply to some thread somewhere...I'll go search. ok end of ot.
life_rockz
Howard: what's perfect contrition? I never actually understood that. (Despite being RC and all. Oh the shame )a
p.s. I'm back! sorry for the absence. I know I'm supposed to reply to some thread somewhere...I'll go search. ok end of ot.
)ap.s. I'm back! sorry for the absence. I know I'm supposed to reply to some thread somewhere...I'll go search. ok end of ot.
Contrite means to feel regret and sorrow for one's sins or offenses; penitent. So perfect contrition means that your regret and sorrow is very genuine. In other words if you confess to something and as soon as you are out of confession you run along and do the same thing without making an effort to ammend your ways then you havn't been contrite. Your contrition has been less than perfect.
Pardon me for butting in... I'm a generic Christian generally found around low Anglican-style churches. I'm not interested very much about statues or capitalisation or what colour shirt your church leader wears to conduct the service, by the way!
God controls the time you die, so don't worry about being hit by a bus on the way to baptism! God has a sense of humour but he certainly isn't malicious. But don't put off commitment any longer than necessary - it's like marriage. You need to be certain you're doing the right thing but once you're sure, you don't want to drag your feet!
(Regarding baptism and confessions generally, I believe that it is Jesus who saves us, not the formalities of how we approach him - besides, he's gone to an awful lot of trouble to let you come to God, he's physically present via the Holy Spirit, if you're doing something wrong he WILL let you know.)
As for sex outside of marriage, I think it is harmful to you and those around you, so it draws you away from God, and that's pretty much what sin is as I understand it. I don't know why it should be regarded differently to any other sin. I was thinking a lot about this last week, actually - IMO, sex is only worthwhile if it's with someone you adore and can't bear to live life without, who feels the same about you, to the extent that you've formally committed to share the rest of your lives together. Anything other is shallow and pointless, and just downright out of place by comparison.
FireDeuce
I have a question..
If you haven't been Baptised yet, but have plans to be baptised in the not so distant future (aka you want to find a Church you feel happy and comfortable in first) but you die before you get the chance, what happens to you? Providing you believe in Jesus Christ and haven't had sex before marriage etc.
Oh and what happens to you if you have sex before marriage?
If you haven't been Baptised yet, but have plans to be baptised in the not so distant future (aka you want to find a Church you feel happy and comfortable in first) but you die before you get the chance, what happens to you? Providing you believe in Jesus Christ and haven't had sex before marriage etc.
Oh and what happens to you if you have sex before marriage?
God controls the time you die, so don't worry about being hit by a bus on the way to baptism! God has a sense of humour but he certainly isn't malicious. But don't put off commitment any longer than necessary - it's like marriage. You need to be certain you're doing the right thing but once you're sure, you don't want to drag your feet!
(Regarding baptism and confessions generally, I believe that it is Jesus who saves us, not the formalities of how we approach him - besides, he's gone to an awful lot of trouble to let you come to God, he's physically present via the Holy Spirit, if you're doing something wrong he WILL let you know.)
As for sex outside of marriage, I think it is harmful to you and those around you, so it draws you away from God, and that's pretty much what sin is as I understand it. I don't know why it should be regarded differently to any other sin. I was thinking a lot about this last week, actually - IMO, sex is only worthwhile if it's with someone you adore and can't bear to live life without, who feels the same about you, to the extent that you've formally committed to share the rest of your lives together. Anything other is shallow and pointless, and just downright out of place by comparison.
Helzerel
Never said that they could.
Neither did I say that priests could!
You insinuated in your earlier post that because Jesus was "able to offer both practical and emotional support to many people ... without being any of these things Himself" so too are priests.
Your perception of what my post was saying is yours and I cannot be responsible for your conclusion.
I was trying to illustrate that a priest did not need to be married with a family to understand the problems that families experience.
I used examples of professional counsellors, Mother Theresa, my own Parish priest and finally, Christ Himself to show that none of these people had anything other than empathy to offer those who had problems - they did not need to have sufferered those problems themselves to appreciate what it felt like.
Apart from all that, what about religious ministers who are not married or have children - are you saying that they can't undertake their ministry efficiently because of their marital status?
life_rockz
what's perfect contrition? I never actually understood that. (Despite being RC and all. Oh the shame )a
)aPerfect Contrition - according to Catholic teaching - is one that arises purely from the love of God. In other words, the sorrow felt is because one has offended God.
Imperfect Contrition is sorrow because of some other consideration, eg 'will I go the Heaven in this state of sin?' - a fear of going to Hell - or a feeling of shame because of the awfullness of the sin.
Then there are the 'qualities' of contrition; interior, supernatural, universal and sovereign...theologians never make things simple, do they?
Regarding baptism: the thief on the cross was not baptised, yet Jesus said he would be with Him in Paradise. So I think that shows you that if you really do believe and have repented, you are saved. Still, baptism is also a point of obedience to Jesus Christ, so if you have become a Christian you should be baptised if it is possible.
Though don't go to a particular church just to get baptism unless you actually believe what they believe - not all churches believe that baptism actually administers grace (it doesn't - it's symbolic of dying to sin - going under the water - and being raised with Christ - coming up out of it) and not all of them will do it properly (by full immersion). You don't want to get fobbed off with a little sprinkle now, do you?
Though don't go to a particular church just to get baptism unless you actually believe what they believe - not all churches believe that baptism actually administers grace (it doesn't - it's symbolic of dying to sin - going under the water - and being raised with Christ - coming up out of it) and not all of them will do it properly (by full immersion). You don't want to get fobbed off with a little sprinkle now, do you?
philjw
Regarding baptism: the thief on the cross was not baptised, yet Jesus said he would be with Him in Paradise. So I think that shows you that if you really do believe and have repented, you are saved. Still, baptism is also a point of obedience to Jesus Christ, so if you have become a Christian you should be baptised if it is possible.
Though don't go to a particular church just to get baptism unless you actually believe what they believe - not all churches believe that baptism actually administers grace (it doesn't - it's symbolic of dying to sin - going under the water - and being raised with Christ - coming up out of it) and not all of them will do it properly (by full immersion). You don't want to get fobbed off with a little sprinkle now, do you?
Though don't go to a particular church just to get baptism unless you actually believe what they believe - not all churches believe that baptism actually administers grace (it doesn't - it's symbolic of dying to sin - going under the water - and being raised with Christ - coming up out of it) and not all of them will do it properly (by full immersion). You don't want to get fobbed off with a little sprinkle now, do you?
It's always important to remember it's Jesus who saves us, not the details of how we follow him. (If I remember correctly, most of Galatians is Paul telling the churches "Don't worry about the small stuff, the details, like whether or not you got circumcised - it really doesn't make a difference. But it is very bad for the church to become divided over these small details, so be considerate and gracious to each other and stay unified.")
(Personally, I think there's only one ritual we're told to follow by Jesus, and that's to break your food before you eat with other Christians, to remind yourselves why you're meeting and who you're meeting for, but I don't think I've ever seen this done.)
(hey, another sidenote in brackets. History shows that 64% of my posts are made from these.)
philjw
Regarding baptism: the thief on the cross was not baptised, yet Jesus said he would be with Him in Paradise. So I think that shows you that if you really do believe and have repented, you are saved. Still, baptism is also a point of obedience to Jesus Christ, so if you have become a Christian you should be baptised if it is possible.
Though don't go to a particular church just to get baptism unless you actually believe what they believe - not all churches believe that baptism actually administers grace (it doesn't - it's symbolic of dying to sin - going under the water - and being raised with Christ - coming up out of it) and not all of them will do it properly (by full immersion). You don't want to get fobbed off with a little sprinkle now, do you?
Though don't go to a particular church just to get baptism unless you actually believe what they believe - not all churches believe that baptism actually administers grace (it doesn't - it's symbolic of dying to sin - going under the water - and being raised with Christ - coming up out of it) and not all of them will do it properly (by full immersion). You don't want to get fobbed off with a little sprinkle now, do you?
Jesus obviously made an exception for the thief on the cross. God can change the general rules if He wants.
Baptism is not symbolic. It's a sacrament - an outward and visible sign of an inward and visible grace wherein the Spirit acts objectively. That's why infants are baptized even they do not believe what the Church believes. Infant baptism cleanses them of the taint of original sin.
And its not the volume of water that matters either.
Dyakson
(Personally, I think there's only one ritual we're told to follow by Jesus, and that's to break your food before you eat with other Christians, to remind yourselves why you're meeting and who you're meeting for, but I don't think I've ever seen this done.)
Wrong. There are seven sacraments and two of them are expressly commanded by Christ; baptism and the eucharist; which is why they are called the Dominical Sacraments. The remaining five, chrismation, marriage, holy orders, unction, and penance, are sometimes called the Lesser Sacraments.
What you are talking about here is the Eucharist, or Mass, or Lord's Supper. Again, it's not a symbolic ritual; but a sacrament wherein we encounter Christ's real presence.
Howard
Wrong. There are seven sacraments and two of them are expressly commanded by Christ; baptism and the eucharist; which is why they are called the Dominical Sacraments. The remaining five, chrismation, marriage, holy orders, unction, and penance, are sometimes called the Lesser Sacraments.
What you are talking about here is the Eucharist, or Mass, or Lord's Supper. Again, it's not a symbolic ritual; but a sacrament wherein we encounter Christ's real presence.
What you are talking about here is the Eucharist, or Mass, or Lord's Supper. Again, it's not a symbolic ritual; but a sacrament wherein we encounter Christ's real presence.
Is 'chrismation' the same Sacrament as Confirmation, Howie?
btw: I see that one of our fellow 'Christians' does not believe that Baptism confers grace - do you believe that all the Sacraments are 'outward signs of inward grace'?
yawn
Is 'chrismation' the same Sacrament as Confirmation, Howie?
btw: I see that one of our fellow 'Christians' does not believe that Baptism confers grace - do you believe that all the Sacraments are 'outward signs of inward grace'?
btw: I see that one of our fellow 'Christians' does not believe that Baptism confers grace - do you believe that all the Sacraments are 'outward signs of inward grace'?
Yes. Chrismation is another word for Confirmation - it's the word more commonly used in the Eastern Churches.
Yes. I do believe that all Sacraments are outward and visible signs of inward and invisible grace.
Howard
Yes. Chrismation is another word for Confirmation - it's the word more commonly used in the Eastern Churches.
Really - I didn't know that.
Yes. I do believe that all Sacraments are outward and visible signs of inward and invisible grace.
It is strange how some fellow Christians don't have the same beliefs as us...but if they did, they would all be members of the catholic (small 'c') church.
I wonder if other faith groups have the same phenomenon.
I have a question, which hopefully you guys (and girls, obviously) will be able to help me with.
It seems to me that the best defence of belief in God is religious experience. William Alston, Professor of Philosophy at Syracuse University defines religious experience thus:
"I mean it to range over all experiences that are taken by the experiencer to be an awareness of God (where God is thought of theistically). I impose no restrictions on its phenomenal quality. It could be a rapturous loss of conscious self-identity in the mystical unity with God; it could involve "visions and voices"; it could be an awareness of God through the experience of nature, the words of the Bible, or the interaction with other persons; it could be a background sense of the presence of God, sustaining one in one's ongoing activities. Thus the category is demarcated by what cognitive significance the subject takes it to have, rather than by any distinctive phenomenal feel."
Taken from his essay The Experiential Basis of Theism:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth04.html
However, what do the more orthodox people here (I'm thinking mainly of Howard and Yawn here) think? Is this "religious experience" an example of "luvvy duvvy" Christianity, or not?
Thanks in advance.
It seems to me that the best defence of belief in God is religious experience. William Alston, Professor of Philosophy at Syracuse University defines religious experience thus:
"I mean it to range over all experiences that are taken by the experiencer to be an awareness of God (where God is thought of theistically). I impose no restrictions on its phenomenal quality. It could be a rapturous loss of conscious self-identity in the mystical unity with God; it could involve "visions and voices"; it could be an awareness of God through the experience of nature, the words of the Bible, or the interaction with other persons; it could be a background sense of the presence of God, sustaining one in one's ongoing activities. Thus the category is demarcated by what cognitive significance the subject takes it to have, rather than by any distinctive phenomenal feel."
Taken from his essay The Experiential Basis of Theism:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth04.html
However, what do the more orthodox people here (I'm thinking mainly of Howard and Yawn here) think? Is this "religious experience" an example of "luvvy duvvy" Christianity, or not?
Thanks in advance.
phawkins1988
I have a question, which hopefully you guys (and girls, obviously) will be able to help me with.
It seems to me that the best defence of belief in God is religious experience. William Alston, Professor of Philosophy at Syracuse University defines religious experience thus:
"I mean it to range over all experiences that are taken by the experiencer to be an awareness of God (where God is thought of theistically). I impose no restrictions on its phenomenal quality. It could be a rapturous loss of conscious self-identity in the mystical unity with God; it could involve "visions and voices"; it could be an awareness of God through the experience of nature, the words of the Bible, or the interaction with other persons; it could be a background sense of the presence of God, sustaining one in one's ongoing activities. Thus the category is demarcated by what cognitive significance the subject takes it to have, rather than by any distinctive phenomenal feel."
Taken from his essay The Experiential Basis of Theism:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth04.html
However, what do the more orthodox people here (I'm thinking mainly of Howard and Yawn here) think? Is this "religious experience" an example of "luvvy duvvy" Christianity, or not?
Thanks in advance.
It seems to me that the best defence of belief in God is religious experience. William Alston, Professor of Philosophy at Syracuse University defines religious experience thus:
"I mean it to range over all experiences that are taken by the experiencer to be an awareness of God (where God is thought of theistically). I impose no restrictions on its phenomenal quality. It could be a rapturous loss of conscious self-identity in the mystical unity with God; it could involve "visions and voices"; it could be an awareness of God through the experience of nature, the words of the Bible, or the interaction with other persons; it could be a background sense of the presence of God, sustaining one in one's ongoing activities. Thus the category is demarcated by what cognitive significance the subject takes it to have, rather than by any distinctive phenomenal feel."
Taken from his essay The Experiential Basis of Theism:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth04.html
However, what do the more orthodox people here (I'm thinking mainly of Howard and Yawn here) think? Is this "religious experience" an example of "luvvy duvvy" Christianity, or not?
Thanks in advance.
The best defence of belief in God, for me anyway, is my interactions with other people.
There is so much goodness in people, that far outways the odd badness. Scratch the surface of the person who is unloveable and find a loveable person.
There is a spark of goodness in us all - some, it is harder to see, but it is there all the same.
My 'religious experience' is the presence of Christ in my life - it is He who gives me the example to follow, and if anyone finds that 'luvvy duvvy' then they should question their Christianity.
I know my post is going to provoke controversy - "bring it on".
phawkins1988
I have a question, which hopefully you guys (and girls, obviously) will be able to help me with.
It seems to me that the best defence of belief in God is religious experience. William Alston, Professor of Philosophy at Syracuse University defines religious experience thus:
"I mean it to range over all experiences that are taken by the experiencer to be an awareness of God (where God is thought of theistically). I impose no restrictions on its phenomenal quality. It could be a rapturous loss of conscious self-identity in the mystical unity with God; it could involve "visions and voices"; it could be an awareness of God through the experience of nature, the words of the Bible, or the interaction with other persons; it could be a background sense of the presence of God, sustaining one in one's ongoing activities. Thus the category is demarcated by what cognitive significance the subject takes it to have, rather than by any distinctive phenomenal feel."
Taken from his essay The Experiential Basis of Theism:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth04.html
However, what do the more orthodox people here (I'm thinking mainly of Howard and Yawn here) think? Is this "religious experience" an example of "luvvy duvvy" Christianity, or not?
Thanks in advance.
It seems to me that the best defence of belief in God is religious experience. William Alston, Professor of Philosophy at Syracuse University defines religious experience thus:
"I mean it to range over all experiences that are taken by the experiencer to be an awareness of God (where God is thought of theistically). I impose no restrictions on its phenomenal quality. It could be a rapturous loss of conscious self-identity in the mystical unity with God; it could involve "visions and voices"; it could be an awareness of God through the experience of nature, the words of the Bible, or the interaction with other persons; it could be a background sense of the presence of God, sustaining one in one's ongoing activities. Thus the category is demarcated by what cognitive significance the subject takes it to have, rather than by any distinctive phenomenal feel."
Taken from his essay The Experiential Basis of Theism:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth04.html
However, what do the more orthodox people here (I'm thinking mainly of Howard and Yawn here) think? Is this "religious experience" an example of "luvvy duvvy" Christianity, or not?
Thanks in advance.
Naturally, one's belief in God would be fortified through a "religious experience" - that's a given I'd have thought - if you suddenly developed stigmata I dare say your belief would be strengthened somewhat! Alston really hasn't broken new ground here. Does it really take a professor of philosophy to state the obvious?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Welcome to the Faith & Spirituality forum! Here are some guidelines...
- Christian society
- need help on bonhoeffer :( !!!
- Re themes paper
- atheist from muslim background dating someone in a wider secular society
- BBC: Tory donor accused of racist remarks about Diane Abbott
- Best Universities/Cities to meet Christian women to date?
- Re themes gcse question
- How to meet Christian women to date? (24m)
- friends
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Please can anyone mark my Jekyll and Hyde essay?
- marking an inspector calls english gcse essay
- Can someone give feedback/grade my essay as Hyde being a frightening outsider? thanks
- Macbeth essay
- Does it make me a bad person to quit volunteer work?
- English & classical studies/civilisation
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 3 (H573/03) 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- TSR Christian Society
- Cranfield School of Management Vs. Birmingham Business School
Latest
Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 6 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 3 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset aboutTrending
Last reply 6 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 6 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 3 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset about
