Alright, it doesn't say every week, but that's what the Early Church did and its mentioned many times in Acts. So you're saying adding is good if you like it and the Bible is sufficient? Cause that's what i got out of it.
Well, by definition: The Bible IS sufficient. It is the ultimate guidebook to our lives, and it clearly lays out for us what God DOESN'T like. Therefore -- knowing what he doesn't like, we can avoid doing the things he doesn't like, and focus on doing what he does like.
But God surely wanted us to what works bets for us, right?
Alright, it doesn't say every week, but that's what the Early Church did and its mentioned many times in Acts. So you're saying adding is good if you like it and the Bible is sufficient? Cause that's what i got out of it.
You twist my words. And I think you meant insufficient, but I'm not sure.
I did not say "if you like it." I said "If it meets the moral standards set by the Bible". My point was that the Bible IS sufficient, but not in the since of telling us about everything, (Which empirically it does not) but that it tells about about higher moral truths and standards by which we can judge everything.
And the Lord's Supper is a bad metaphor. Although, shouldn't you question the early church doing it every week(If they did, anyway) since the Bible doesn't say that? According to your line of logic, which is, however flawed. Clearly, there's nothing wrong with doing it every week, just like there's nothing wrong with musical instruments. Why? Because they do not violate anything the Bible says, but add to beauty and worship.
To restate the point(again) The Bible tells us many things to do and many things not to do. Nowhere does it say that we can't do anything it doesn't tell us to, even if it doesn't say not to do it.
That would be ridiculous. It never tells us to sit in chairs while eating, or to jump up and down on one foot, or to grill burgers or fry them, or read magazines, juggle, or close one eye and open the other, or clip our toenails, etc.
We should judge hings that are not exactly mentioned in the Bible against the standards it sets. if they do not violate the standards, and especially when they agree with those standards and help us accomplish the things the Bible tells us to do, then they are perfectly acceptable, and even extremely commendable.
Yes I did, thank you. but, who decides what's moral The Bible does. The Bible tell how to follow God, that's all we need in life.
No hut there is huge wars, better no one gets involved, he could have gone in the Rwandan Genocide and saved a lot of People, again At least we keep are head out of it.
You know the party that outraged the world by doing nothing about Rwanda?
The Democrats.
Sure, but a republican would do different, give me a break.
Don't judge her just because she wrote a book that revolves around 'witchcraft and wizardry'. She wrote a fictional tale to entertain us. What her personal beliefs are is her own business.
I would also like to point out that fictional magic has nothing to do with actual witchcraft -- which is practiced by delusional people (this doesn't make it any less wrong, but still).
A christian should have nothing to do with magic and what she writes about.
If that's your opinion, it's fine, I suppose. But you realize that's saying C.S. Lewis was wrong to write Narnia, right? And I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that he was a devout Christian and that his writings were very symbolic. And his other writings were straight up about being a Christian.
How are we adding to the worship, and please enlighten me on how we are to worship, since the Bible apparently details that exactly.
Well if we add to worship by bringing in Instruments why not root beer and Chips for the Lords supper, after it makes people happier, and that what's important, right?
The Lord's Supper isn't supposed to taste good, it's supposed to be a reminder of Jesus' sacrifice. You don't want people to enjoy the food, that will distract them. However, you do want people to enjoy praising God, right?
Don't judge her just because she wrote a book that revolves around 'witchcraft and wizardry'. She wrote a fictional tale to entertain us. What her personal beliefs are is her own business.
I would also like to point out that fictional magic has nothing to do with actual witchcraft -- which is practiced by delusional people (this doesn't make it any less wrong, but still).
Tell that to my parents. I'd like to read Harry Potter, but they won't let me.
But now that I've started the Wheel of Time series, I probably won't be reading anything else for a long time.
Peter Pevensie, of course. Or possibly the Apostle Peter. Or Peter Piper. There are a lot of Peters.
Oh, he probably did mean the apostle Peter. Wikipedia does say that according to Catholic tradition, he was the first pope. However, I highly, highly doubt he ever had that title.
...I'm so tempted to state my opinion on these religoius matters, but seeing as I'm probably the only Catholic posting on this thread, I think I'd be responding to literally everyone else and restating the same points over and over again. xD I'm tempted, but I won't. Frankly I'm surprised how this thread has been allowed, I could see a lot of arguments blowing up here.
There have been plenty of arguments. But we're mostly being more polite after an Admin warning.
