The bad side of Christianity

 

But one thing I hate about Christianity the most is their Christian missionary(mostly Protestant and the Mormon). They will keep knocking on your door and luring people in the street and threatening you if You don't believe in Jesus you will burn in the Hell...etc .Although you already said"No" hundred times.

 

The other thing is hypocrisy. Many of their famous preachers openly voice against commiting homosexuality and adultery in the public. In private, many of them are  acutallly gayor Adulterer themselves.

 

 

 

 

-Akolouthos

 

 

 

However, for now I do have one bone to pick. Make that three.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would be careful about saying people aren't Christians--especially if I were denying certain basic scriptural doctrines. You are not living the "historical definition" of Christianity; indeed, such a claim from someone who denies the value of God inspired tradition is laughable at best. For did our Lord Jesus Christ not state:

 

 

You fail to take into account the very real shift between the Old Covenant and the New. Though we may still err--after all, we are mere mortals--we, as an ecclesial body, have the promise of divine inspiration. You make no distinction between the sacred, God led Tradition of the Church and the traditions of men. For that matter, you are in desperate need of a familiarization with the whole of Scripture, and not just certain evangelical proof texts, as we shall see in a moment.

 

First let us address your attempt to assail the very idea of "tradition" itself. We really don't need to address your "proof" texts at this point, because they all rely on the same, rather careless--and, unfortunately, all too common--flaw: that of refusing to recognize the distinction between God inspired tradition and the "traditions of men." What we do need to do is to see how the misinterpretation of certain passages of Scripture, along with the casual dismissal of other parts, leads to a disastrous perversion of the Christian Faith--the same type of perversion that you accuse others of making. Perhaps the best way of illustrating the dangers of such a perspective is to address three specific issues which have come up in this thread: the sacrament of confession, fasting,  and the celibacy of priests.

 

The first issue which we shall address is confession--and we shall not take long. The sacrament of confession, which was the issue that was initially raised--and which led to your rather cavalier dismissal of Romanism--has a solid basis in both Scripture and Tradition. For did our lord not say to the Apostles that:

 

 

Christ goes on to describe the power Christians have when gathered together. This is absolutely essential, for we are a community. Sin affects the entire ecclesial community. As I recall, this is one of the very few (2?) times in Scripture where Christ actually talks about a "church." That should say something to you about what He is trying to emphasize here. Well, the priest is the sacramental guardian of the community, and acts as its representative, in accordance with the powers granted to the Apostles by Christ, and by the Apostles to the Church.

 

As for fasting, I think you need to clarify--both for my benefit, as well as your own--your issues with the practice. I am actually upset that the Roman Church has placed less emphasis on this essential part of Christian spirituality over the past several decades. I assure you that the practice of fasting is, indeed, Scriptural, for did our Lord not say:

 

 

That said, it can become legalistic (Pharasaical), but I would say that the various denials of this very real pillar of the spiritual life by certain evangelicals is much more detrimental than the actions of those who seek--although, unfortunately, legalistically--to follow what is an essential part of true spirituality. It is the difference between following Christ's command wrongly, and refusing to follow it at all.

 

The celibacy of priests is one area where you and I would find ourselves in agreement, at least to some extent. Still, by taking a couple of passages of Scripture out of context, I believe you have missed the overall message. The common evangelical "proof" texts give the impression that everyone must be married, which both you and I would agree simply isn't the case. This is why it is better to take the whole of Scripture, as well as the historical guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit, into account. Anyway, if you do still need an example that states that it is fine for a minister of God to be unmarried, you need turn no further than St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians, where he states:

 

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. [I Cor. 7: 1-2]

 

which is further contextualized by that which follows...

 

But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. [I Cor. 7: 8-9]

 

Even our Lord endorsed the honorable path chosen by men "who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," continuing,   "He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."

 

If you wish, we could delve into exegesis--for surely you will admit that the path from the Book to the mind is subject (without the aid of the Spirit) to all of the pitfalls that affect human comprehension in other contexts. You will pardon me if I take the perspective of the God inspired fathers of the Church over more recent... innovations.

 

-Akolouthos