Why is it ok during lent...
Originally posted by fujiwara takumi
well, it seems the mainstream thing to do for catholics would be:
a. ignore that intreptation of the bible
b. assume youre a horrible person like every other Catholic and try to live your life in constant shame.
c. leave the faith
d. become a priest.
seems d is one of the more popular.
well, it seems the mainstream thing to do for catholics would be:
a. ignore that intreptation of the bible
b. assume youre a horrible person like every other Catholic and try to live your life in constant shame.
c. leave the faith
d. become a priest.
seems d is one of the more popular.
Originally posted by qtiger
Even if you could read German it would do you no good as it was written in Latin.
Even if you could read German it would do you no good as it was written in Latin.
anyway, check this out
Why all of these Lutherans? In part it stems from how one views the work of Martin Luther and the nature of the Reformation. Historically, one group, later labeled "orthodoxy," focused on doctrine and believed that the Reformation was a conservative movement. They believed that Luther had preserved the Bible's clear teaching on Christ's atoning work, justification by grace, and the application of Christ's benefits in the means of grace. Therefore, they focused on what Luther retained from the historic church. Preservation of pure doctrine became the rallying cry of this group. Another grouping, later broadly referred to as Pietism, saw Luther as a radical reformer whose main teaching was freedom from the institutional church. Freedom to change became this group's trademark. Some leaders within Pietism believed that Luther had made a good beginning, but hadn't gone far enough in his reforms. Therefore, it was the task of the church to reform itself continually, even if that meant changing some of its beliefs to fit the time and place in which it existed.
basically two groups of "Luterhans" with absolutely opposing viewpoints, one nearly in parallel to Catholism, another completely in contrast of it. there are currently 12 active synods.
Originally posted by Teg711
i think in just about every religion i've ever heard of we're all going to burn in hell so what's the difference anyways? we'll just have a big party, i'll bring the :beer: and we'll roast a pig, you bring the evil girls
i think in just about every religion i've ever heard of we're all going to burn in hell so what's the difference anyways? we'll just have a big party, i'll bring the :beer: and we'll roast a pig, you bring the evil girls
I take the santa claus approach, i figure as long as i outweight the bad shit i do things will be ok. Catholism is neat cuz they got that hell to scare the shit outta you with, whereas lutheranism ... i dont ever remember that being used as a scare tactic like it was against my Catholic friends. i dont think there was ever a description of the place, or satan, or anything of the like, except for the impression that satan was simply part of the way things work, and he can be anywhere at any time as anything...and nothing at all, simply a collection of bad shit people do to each other. its funny, thinking back, i barely remember any references to hell.
Originally posted by 94civicEX
I don't know what's going on
h:.
I don't know what's going on
h:.
in the end, you are allowed to eat fish because the pope and the church are corrupt, and gave favors to their family in order to support their failing business. they used Jesus' blood to make money.
Originally posted by fujiwara takumi
My religion teaches that as long as you make amends for wrongs things will be ok, there is no purgatory like in Catholism, and that no matter how great the sin God will forgive you.
My religion teaches that as long as you make amends for wrongs things will be ok, there is no purgatory like in Catholism, and that no matter how great the sin God will forgive you.
From the 95 Theses written my Dr. Martin Luther and, of course, posted on the door of the Wittenburg church in 1517.
14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
I. Of Sin.
Here we must confess, as Paul says in Rom. 5, 11, that sin originated [and entered the world] from one man Adam, by whose disobedience all men were made sinners, [and] subject to death and the devil. This is called original or capital sin.
The fruits of this sin are afterwards the evil deeds which are forbidden in the Ten Commandments, such as [distrust] unbelief, false faith, idolatry, to be without the fear of God, presumption [recklessness], despair, blindness [or complete loss of sight], and, in short not to know or regard God; furthermore to lie, to swear by [to abuse] God's name [to swear falsely], not to pray, not to call upon God, not to regard [to despise or neglect] God's Word, to be disobedient to parents, to murder, to be unchaste, to steal, to deceive, etc.
This hereditary sin is so deep and [horrible] a corruption of nature that no reason can understand it, but it must be [learned and] believed from the revelation of Scriptures, Ps. 51, 5; Rom. 6, 12 ff.; Ex. 33, 3; Gen. 3, 7 ff.
Here we must confess, as Paul says in Rom. 5, 11, that sin originated [and entered the world] from one man Adam, by whose disobedience all men were made sinners, [and] subject to death and the devil. This is called original or capital sin.
The fruits of this sin are afterwards the evil deeds which are forbidden in the Ten Commandments, such as [distrust] unbelief, false faith, idolatry, to be without the fear of God, presumption [recklessness], despair, blindness [or complete loss of sight], and, in short not to know or regard God; furthermore to lie, to swear by [to abuse] God's name [to swear falsely], not to pray, not to call upon God, not to regard [to despise or neglect] God's Word, to be disobedient to parents, to murder, to be unchaste, to steal, to deceive, etc.
This hereditary sin is so deep and [horrible] a corruption of nature that no reason can understand it, but it must be [learned and] believed from the revelation of Scriptures, Ps. 51, 5; Rom. 6, 12 ff.; Ex. 33, 3; Gen. 3, 7 ff.
Religious drift is just facinating.
look before this goes any further, there is a simple statement that will end this arguement.
there are many, many many ways to interpret any teaching, writing, or faith. This much is obvious when you review how many religions there are that claim they are basing their faith off on the bible. So....while you read those writings and understand it one way, the way _I_ was taught they mean something completely different to me.
BESIDES that Martin Luther spawned the PROTESTANT faith, Lutheranism is an american invention, AELC being around 40-50 years old from what ive found, it is sort of "ok, this is what protestants claim, this is what martin luther said, this is what we understand him to mean."
one of the big tennants of AELC is there is no belief of iriginal sin, purgatory or judgment day of any type.
there are many, many many ways to interpret any teaching, writing, or faith. This much is obvious when you review how many religions there are that claim they are basing their faith off on the bible. So....while you read those writings and understand it one way, the way _I_ was taught they mean something completely different to me.
BESIDES that Martin Luther spawned the PROTESTANT faith, Lutheranism is an american invention, AELC being around 40-50 years old from what ive found, it is sort of "ok, this is what protestants claim, this is what martin luther said, this is what we understand him to mean."
one of the big tennants of AELC is there is no belief of iriginal sin, purgatory or judgment day of any type.
I don't find it unreasonable that a Reform church would change over the course of say... 485 years, I just find it a little bit hilarious that a church would be named after a religious scholar and philospher with whom their fundamental precepts are in disagreement.
Originally posted by qtiger
I don't find it unreasonable that a Reform church would change over the course of say... 485 years, I just find it a little bit hilarious that a church would be named after a religious scholar and philospher with whom their fundamental precepts are in disagreement.
I don't find it unreasonable that a Reform church would change over the course of say... 485 years, I just find it a little bit hilarious that a church would be named after a religious scholar and philospher with whom their fundamental precepts are in disagreement.
the idea of AELC is that while what luther said at the time was terribly profound, it was profound for the time, and that in order to respect what Luther was getting at we must continually evolve the church and its beliefs to reflect the times...even if that means changing basic tennants and teachings to create growth and freshness
i cant think of any examples of what im trying to say, but its right on the tip of my tongue, and i think it occurs fairly frequently.


