[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rich coming from someone who thought it was appropriate to bring my beliefs into an internet argument.
Who do you think you are to insult me because of my beliefs?[/quote]
Your religious beliefs are not the same as my mother. I don’t make remarks on your parents, you could at least try to extend the same courtesy.[/quote]
Well, my comment was never to insult your mother, my comment was to rib you about that you couldn’t convert your mother. Your mother being a Hindu has no effect on me, and shouldn’t be an insult to you or your mother. I hope that you see that I was not insulting your mother, just your lack of ability to convert.
Sorry if you felt I was insulting your mother.[/quote]
Why the hell would I convert my mother?[/quote]
Try to convert everyone else.[/quote]
And pray tell, who have I tried to “convert”? I don’t give a damn what you believe unless it starts affecting me.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Why do you keep acting as if idiosyncratic means only one person or a very small group can believe it? In the broad scope of Christian beliefs, those you have expressed here are idiosyncratic. Many, many Christians disagree vehemently with your particular interpretations of the bible. [/quote]
[quote]Definition of IDIOSYNCRASY (Merriam Webster)
1-a : a peculiarity of constitution or temperament : an individualizing characteristic or quality b : individual hypersensitiveness (as to a drug or food)
2-: characteristic peculiarity (as of temperament); broadly : eccentricity [/quote]You said this “As I said, you condemn everyone who has a different biblical interpretation than you do.” So, are you ready to recant this statement or are you ready to pretty please with sugar on top give me an example of one of MY idiosyncratic interpretations, one peculiar to myself or a small group I associate with, lacking vaaaast historical representation, whereby I have declared somebody under God’s present condemnation?
Maybe you were having a vocabulary fart with your use of the word “idiosyncratic”.? Maybe you’d rather just forget the whole thing because you know by now that I wouldn’t be persisting in this line of discourse were I not prepared to demonstrate vaaaast historical representation for every last doctrine and or principle I’ve ever posited in this regard thus rendering your charge of “idiosyncrasy”, meaning personal, of my own contrivance (don’t even try n deny this) wholly inaccurate and unfounded?
I said to IrishSteel 7 months ago and many times in so many words since, right here in these forums.:
“The life and death core of the gospel of Christ can be expressed in a few sentences shared by all true Christians of all ages regardless of denomination and individual doctrinal distinctions on lesser issues.”
I accept your apology.
[/quote]
Stop getting hung up on definitions. It’s pretty damn obvious what he’s trying to say and you either refuse to see it or keep playing word games to escape the point.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
<<< Stop getting hung up on definitions. It’s pretty damn obvious what he’s trying to say and you either refuse to see it or keep playing word games to escape the point. >>>[/quote]He’s saying I have “idiosyncratically” narrow views that I use to exclude any who disagree from God’s grace. Nothing could be further from the truth and I will not let that stand. If he’s not saying that then a bit of remedial English is in order. His English is just fine.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
<<< Stop getting hung up on definitions. It’s pretty damn obvious what he’s trying to say and you either refuse to see it or keep playing word games to escape the point. >>>[/quote]He’s saying I have “idiosyncratically” narrow views that I use to exclude any who disagree from God’s grace. Nothing could be further from the truth and I will not let that stand. If he’s not saying that then a bit of remedial English is in order. His English is just fine.
[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
<<< Stop getting hung up on definitions. It’s pretty damn obvious what he’s trying to say and you either refuse to see it or keep playing word games to escape the point. >>>[/quote]He’s saying I have “idiosyncratically” narrow views that I use to exclude any who disagree from God’s grace. Nothing could be further from the truth and I will not let that stand. If he’s not saying that then a bit of remedial English is in order. His English is just fine.
[/quote]
I’m saying that millions of equally earnest, faithful Christians read the same bible and draw diametrically different conclusions on Christ and salvation than you do. Are you disagreeing with this, especially in light of the conversations between you, Brother Chris, and Pat on this board?
I’m disappointed that you’re resorting to semantics to avoid addressing this point. So to avoid further distractions, I’ll gladly apologize for any implication that your beliefs are only held by yourself or by a very small number of Christians. I don’t believe that, and my point doesn’t depend on it. You could even be in the majority, and my point would stand.
Not viewing the RCC as a Christian institution is old standard fare. Again, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 Ch. XXV section VI. [quote]VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God. [/quote] I do not view the RCC as a Christian church. If they were true to their history they would have announced my present damnation months ago. This whole "we’re all brethren approaching God through the same Gospel from different angles (in a nuthshell ok?) is new. I simply refuse bow to this anti-Christian modernism. I have also said “there will be people from the RCC in heaven and people from my church in hell”. Haven’t I? Or do I have to dig that up too. I have further said that I do not doubt somebody’s present state before God based solely on their communion with the RCC. It is a symptom. There is one catholic here I might be persuaded actually knows the Lord.
You will no doubt be scowling at your screen wondering “who does this guy think he is judging people like this”? More typical modernism. I don’t judge anybody. I simply heed the positive commands of scripture TOO judge by the standards prescribed there. I will say it again for the 100th time. Nobody except God can know for certain who IS in His present saving grace except themselves. In the majority of cases it is a trivial matter to determine that somebody IS NOT in His present saving grace.
I have quoted these passages until my fingers hurt. There are literally dozens of non RCC denominations that I hold profound disagreements with, but consider people in those denominations in good standing to be preaching the same essential gospel I do. Good grief, there are men right here that near as I can tell I would embrace as brethren that I also hold very significant differences with. You haven’t noticed this? It’s not actually that deep or difficult. A person holding FATALLY heretical doctrine and or a public, flagrantly sinful lifestyle is to be treated as an unbeliever until such time as they repent and forsake their error. Or at least seek accountability from others before God as they strive for victory.
No Christian has perfect doctrine and every Christian is at war with their sin. I’m talking about mortally flawed theology (I.E. wrong God like the JW’s or Mormons) and or a publicly unrepentant sinful lifestyle (I.E. immorality among other things) or those who by alliance either tacitly or actively condone either. With Catholics it’s usually both. A dead religion that produces dead works while leaving dead people dead which can be observed in the absence of the transforming power of the risen Christ in their lives. They talk, think and act like unbelievers except they talk about their religion.
Here’s an example. God says this in Romans 1 ESV.
[quote]24-Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25-because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26-For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27-and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. <<<>>>32-Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.[/quote]They say this to you, a practicing homosexual:[quote]
I think you will be saved. There is something about the love of God you can’t ignore and that will save you. I don’t care who you bone.[/quote]Thereby impugning and openly dishonoring the Word, holiness, created order and justice of almighty God. I’d prefer if they just said they didn’t believe the bible.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rich coming from someone who thought it was appropriate to bring my beliefs into an internet argument.
Who do you think you are to insult me because of my beliefs?[/quote]
Your religious beliefs are not the same as my mother. I don’t make remarks on your parents, you could at least try to extend the same courtesy.[/quote]
Well, my comment was never to insult your mother, my comment was to rib you about that you couldn’t convert your mother. Your mother being a Hindu has no effect on me, and shouldn’t be an insult to you or your mother. I hope that you see that I was not insulting your mother, just your lack of ability to convert.
Sorry if you felt I was insulting your mother.[/quote]
Why the hell would I convert my mother?[/quote]
Try to convert everyone else.[/quote]
And pray tell, who have I tried to “convert”? I don’t give a damn what you believe unless it starts affecting me.[/quote]
Almost everyone, I mean honey does attract flies more than vinegar, but with all your sky wizard talk it sounds like you care.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Not viewing the RCC as a Christian institution is old standard fare. Again, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 Ch. XXV section VI. [quote]VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God. [/quote] I do not view the RCC as a Christian church. If they were true to their history they would have announced my present damnation months ago. This whole "we’re all brethren approaching God through the same Gospel from different angles (in a nuthshell ok?) is new. I simply refuse bow to this anti-Christian modernism. I have also said “there will be people from the RCC in heaven and people from my church in hell”. Haven’t I? Or do I have to dig that up too. I have further said that I do not doubt somebody’s present state before God based solely on their communion with the RCC. It is a symptom. There is one catholic here I might be persuaded actually knows the Lord. [/quote]
Not new, if you know the truth of the Church, yet refuse to be in the Catholic Church you’re rejecting the Holy Ghost. However, I don’t know if you’re doing that. And, the fact that you still don’t get invincible ignorance gives me thought that you are in fact not doing that.
And thanks for thinking I actually know the Lord.
You chide Pat and me when I say that you can’t know who is going to Hell and who is not. I do not think anyone has said one should not judge (well my girlfriend thinks we shouldn’t judge anyone, but I’ll have to beat it into her) someone when it comes to their salvation. If a brethren is committing sin like going to a strip club, pull him aside. We do that. However, we do not condemn that they’ll receive eternal punishment, because it is not our position.
Then I say, heretic repent of your material heretical doctrine and come to the Catholic Church.
The guiding principles in the Church’s treatment of heretics are the following: Distinguishing between formal and material heretics, she applies to the former the canon, “Most firmly hold and in no way doubt that every heretic or schismatic is to have part with the Devil and his angels in the flames of eternal fire, unless before the end of his life he be incorporated with, and restored to the Catholic Church.” No one is forced to enter the Church, but having once entered it through baptism, he is bound to keep the promises he freely made. To restrain and bring back her rebellious sons the Church uses both her own spiritual power and the secular power at her command. Towards material heretics her conduct is ruled by the saying of St. Augustine: “Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal (animositas), especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected” (P.L., XXXIII, ep. xliii, 160). Pius IX, in a letter to the bishops of Italy (10 Aug., 1863), restates this Catholic doctrine: “It is known to Us and to You that they who are in invincible ignorance concerning our religion but observe the natural law . . . and are ready to obey God and lead an honest and righteous life, can, with the help of Divine light and grace, attain to eternal life . . . for God . . . will not allow any one to be eternally punished who is not wilfully guilty” (Denzinger, “Enchir.”, n. 1529). X.
What part of the Catholic lifestyle is unrepentant?
How do we condone sin?
[quote]
Here’s an example. God says this in Romans 1 ESV.
[quote]24-Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25-because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26-For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27-and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. <<<>>>32-Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.[/quote]They say this to you, a practicing homosexual:[quote]
I think you will be saved. There is something about the love of God you can’t ignore and that will save you. I don’t care who you bone.[/quote]Thereby impugning and openly dishonoring the Word, holiness, created order and justice of almighty God. I’d prefer if they just said they didn’t believe the bible.[/quote]
And, Tirib: you can’t treat Catholics the same you treat Protestants. Protestant’s hold truth based on what they believe, a Catholic holds the truth the Church believes but may not actually understand fully.
Now, I would say that Pat didn’t make a declarative statement that forlife can bone who he wants and be saved at the same time. More that Pat doesn’t care who forlife bones, God can still save him, but Pat will have to clarify if he wishes, otherwise I’ll assume this is his meaning. As I posted above, you still have to do God’s will in order to be saved. And acting out your homosexuality is not God’s will.
And for you Tirib:
The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church. Their material severance, however, precludes them from the use of ecclesiastical rights, except the right of being judged according to ecclesiastical law if, by any chance, they are brought before an ecclesiastical court. They are not bound by ecclesiastical laws enacted for the spiritual well-being of its members, e.g. by the Six Commandments of the Church.
You’re still not free from your ecclesiastical duties.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rich coming from someone who thought it was appropriate to bring my beliefs into an internet argument.
Who do you think you are to insult me because of my beliefs?[/quote]
Your religious beliefs are not the same as my mother. I don’t make remarks on your parents, you could at least try to extend the same courtesy.[/quote]
Well, my comment was never to insult your mother, my comment was to rib you about that you couldn’t convert your mother. Your mother being a Hindu has no effect on me, and shouldn’t be an insult to you or your mother. I hope that you see that I was not insulting your mother, just your lack of ability to convert.
Sorry if you felt I was insulting your mother.[/quote]
Why the hell would I convert my mother?[/quote]
Try to convert everyone else.[/quote]
And pray tell, who have I tried to “convert”? I don’t give a damn what you believe unless it starts affecting me.[/quote]
Almost everyone, I mean honey does attract flies more than vinegar, but with all your sky wizard talk it sounds like you care.[/quote]
Tiribulus, I’m not looking for scriptural justification for your belief that millions of Christians are heretics bound for hell. I already know you believe this, based on your interpretation of scripture. I’m not singling you out, since it’s equally obvious that millions of Christians believe you are the one bound for hell.
Can you kindly address the actual point?
It’s patently clear that you fundamentally disagree with these Christians on what is necessary for salvation. They study the same bible, they are equally earnest, their faith is strong, yet their conclusions contradict yours, not on trivial doctrinal matters, but on critical questions pertaining to the eternal state of your soul.
Now, the point which I ask you to address:
Given these fundamental, unreconcilable contradictions, is it not obvious that faith alone is insufficient for determining the truth regarding salvation? You all have faith, yet you disagree on what is necessary for salvation. Clearly, faith doesn’t cut it when it comes to knowing what is actually real.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
I’m a little late, but I don’t care. Tiribulus confess most closely to something that can be called a cult on this thread. You people interested in religion should all know this. Atheism may become a cult, who knows, but as it it isn’t. A cult is something that is done communally and that is against the grain of society. There is no community of atheists, maybe it is in the forming, we’ll see, but against the grain of society? Wasn’t the problem just that, the atheification of society? (Is that a word?, I don’t even dare to check it)[/quote]
I’ll tell you this.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Cult: “A system or community of religious worship or ritual.” Every religious group has its own form of cult. The word itself derives from the Latin cultus, which means worship. It is the root of other words with positive connotations: culture, cultivation.
Chris, that’s a website. Sorry that I used the word community, it obviously sent you on wrong track. What I mean to say is that there is no community of atheists that can be called a cult and there will not likely ever be such a community, atheism alone is too weak for that. There is no reward or punishment, exept in getting reactions from believers. When believers are out the party is over.[/quote]
You’ll have to explain what you mean, before I go further then. It sounded like you meant atheism, then you meant not atheism, then you said there is no community, then say they are too weak because there is no reward and punishment.[/quote]
One can not meaningfully use the word cult in association with atheism. That’s all.[/quote]
Well, the militant atheists, I’d could meaningful say that. I mean some of their responses and objections are on the level of JW and Mormon’s (no offense guys, I just know what your going to say before you say it) rehearsed responses. Kind of creepy/annoying to hear the same argument from so many people, feels like they have their own evangelical center or something.[/quote]
Your discomfort with these responses does not make atheism a cult. It merely points to their efficacy.
Ok, here we go again. An example please? Forget Rome for a minute. Which “Christians” disagree with something I’ve said regarding the core gospel message? I just went to a huge meeting a couple weeks ago in an auditorium in the northern burbs attended by representatives from at least 73 local churches spanning the full spectrum of orthodox denominations and flavors. I guarantee I held hands and prayed with and was prayed for by people who disagree with me about everything EXCEPT that core gospel message.
I know by the churches they came from. They are my brethren. There are NO true Christians who disagree about the core gospel message and there never has been. That is not possible as denial of the true core gospel message defines you out of Christianity in a decidedly ipso facto fashion.
Everything I believe was the prevailing though certainly not only view at the time of the American Revolution.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rich coming from someone who thought it was appropriate to bring my beliefs into an internet argument.
Who do you think you are to insult me because of my beliefs?[/quote]
Your religious beliefs are not the same as my mother. I don’t make remarks on your parents, you could at least try to extend the same courtesy.[/quote]
Well, my comment was never to insult your mother, my comment was to rib you about that you couldn’t convert your mother. Your mother being a Hindu has no effect on me, and shouldn’t be an insult to you or your mother. I hope that you see that I was not insulting your mother, just your lack of ability to convert.
Sorry if you felt I was insulting your mother.[/quote]
Why the hell would I convert my mother?[/quote]
Try to convert everyone else.[/quote]
And pray tell, who have I tried to “convert”? I don’t give a damn what you believe unless it starts affecting me.[/quote]
Almost everyone, I mean honey does attract flies more than vinegar, but with all your sky wizard talk it sounds like you care.[/quote]
Again, who have I tried to convert?
“Almost everyone” doesn’t constitute an answer.[/quote]
I concede that you haven’t tried to convert anyone. As, if you haven’t neither have I, and trust me. I don’t pretend to try and convert anyone. If someone wants to become Catholic then they can come to me and I’ll teach them what I know, but beyond that I just pray and fast.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
I’m a little late, but I don’t care. Tiribulus confess most closely to something that can be called a cult on this thread. You people interested in religion should all know this. Atheism may become a cult, who knows, but as it it isn’t. A cult is something that is done communally and that is against the grain of society. There is no community of atheists, maybe it is in the forming, we’ll see, but against the grain of society? Wasn’t the problem just that, the atheification of society? (Is that a word?, I don’t even dare to check it)[/quote]
I’ll tell you this.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Cult: “A system or community of religious worship or ritual.” Every religious group has its own form of cult. The word itself derives from the Latin cultus, which means worship. It is the root of other words with positive connotations: culture, cultivation.
Chris, that’s a website. Sorry that I used the word community, it obviously sent you on wrong track. What I mean to say is that there is no community of atheists that can be called a cult and there will not likely ever be such a community, atheism alone is too weak for that. There is no reward or punishment, exept in getting reactions from believers. When believers are out the party is over.[/quote]
You’ll have to explain what you mean, before I go further then. It sounded like you meant atheism, then you meant not atheism, then you said there is no community, then say they are too weak because there is no reward and punishment.[/quote]
One can not meaningfully use the word cult in association with atheism. That’s all.[/quote]
Well, the militant atheists, I’d could meaningful say that. I mean some of their responses and objections are on the level of JW and Mormon’s (no offense guys, I just know what your going to say before you say it) rehearsed responses. Kind of creepy/annoying to hear the same argument from so many people, feels like they have their own evangelical center or something.[/quote]
Your discomfort with these responses does not make atheism a cult. It merely points to their efficacy.
[/quote]
Their efficacy just brings me discomfort because of their usually straw man like qualities.
Their efficacy just brings me discomfort because of their usually straw man like qualities.[/quote]
They’re only straw men inasmuch as Christianity is an utterly meaningless term.
Sure, my pointing out that christians believe in an impossible creation theory is a straw man when you can suddenly change the rules to allow christians to believe in evolution instead of spontaneous generation.
So some christians take the bible literally, some dont.
And when I make mention of christians using the threat of hell to manipulate people, I have other christians on these forums tell me the bible makes no mention of a place called hell, that the punishment is simply nothinness or the absence of god.
So some christians believe in hell, some dont.
And if I say christians are anti-gay, other christians will point out gay accepting christians.
So some are, some arent.
I always hear that god is all knowing, including the future. Then a poster on here says Goc could see the future but sometimes chooses not to.
So some think god is all knowing, some think god CAN be all knowing but isnt necessarily knowing of everything all the time.
I agree with Forlife. Too many different interpretations of the same thing, many of which directly contradict each other, make it meaningless. To be Christian means nothing when it could mean you either agree or disagree with so many really important topics.
Their efficacy just brings me discomfort because of their usually straw man like qualities.[/quote]
They’re only straw men inasmuch as Christianity is an utterly meaningless term.
Sure, my pointing out that christians believe in an impossible creation theory is a straw man when you can suddenly change the rules to allow christians to believe in evolution instead of spontaneous generation.
So some christians take the bible literally, some dont.
And when I make mention of christians using the threat of hell to manipulate people, I have other christians on these forums tell me the bible makes no mention of a place called hell, that the punishment is simply nothinness or the absence of god.
So some christians believe in hell, some dont.
And if I say christians are anti-gay, other christians will point out gay accepting christians.
So some are, some arent.
I always hear that god is all knowing, including the future. Then a poster on here says Goc could see the future but sometimes chooses not to.
So some think god is all knowing, some think god CAN be all knowing but isnt necessarily knowing of everything all the time.
I agree with Forlife. Too many different interpretations of the same thing, many of which directly contradict each other, make it meaningless. To be Christian means nothing when it could mean you either agree or disagree with so many really important topics.[/quote]
It’s pretty simple, really…
There is no need for a god. There is no evidence of a god. Everything beyond that is mental masturbation.
Ok, here we go again. An example please? Forget Rome for a minute. Which “Christians” disagree with something I’ve said regarding the core gospel message? I just went to a huge meeting a couple weeks ago in an auditorium in the northern burbs attended by representatives from at least 73 local churches spanning the full spectrum of orthodox denominations and flavors. I guarantee I held hands and prayed with and was prayed for by people who disagree with me about everything EXCEPT that core gospel message.
I know by the churches they came from. They are my brethren. There are NO true Christians who disagree about the core gospel message and there never has been. That is not possible as denial of the true core gospel message defines you out of Christianity in a decidedly ipso facto fashion.
Everything I believe was the prevailing though certainly not only view at the time of the American Revolution.
[/quote]
So far, you’ve condemned Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses as holding fatally heretical doctrines which, if unrepented of, will land them in hell. I’m sure there are numerous other Christian religions you would add to that list, although no doubt you would say they aren’t true Christians.
Which is exactly my point. These religions represent millions of Christians who have read the same bible, and are every bit as earnest and faithful as you, yet according to you they are fatally flawed.
You have faith.
They have faith.
Yet your conclusions about Christ and salvation are diametrically different.
Clearly, faith can lead to fundamentally opposed conclusions, and thus it us useless as a tool for knowing truth.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< So far, you’ve condemned Catholics, >>>[/quote]Roman Catholicism is a unique religion in that it actually does have a semblance of the true gospel except it’s buried under 1000 feet of artificial corruption on every level. Historical, theological and practical. In case you haven’t noticed. I have said that I’m not going to be the one to eliminate the possibility of some in that communion truly knowing the true God though it would be in spite of, by God’s amazing grace, and not because of their church. By bible standards untainted by the stench of man made tradition, it’s fruit is rotten. [quote]forlife wrote:Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses as holding fatally heretical doctrines which, if unrepented of, will land them in hell. I’m sure there are numerous other Christian religions you would add to that list, although no doubt you would say they aren’t true Christians. >>>[/quote]Agreed. Those are non Christian cults, defined as recently spawned, non historical heretical sects that are universally recognized as such by the whole of even Catholic church history. Lutherans, Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Calvinists (4 AND 5 pointers), Arminians, pre, post and A millinarians, trichotomists, dichotomists, infra, supra and sublapsarians, all of the numerous subtle versions of depravity, sin and how they’re transmitted, on and on and on and on and on. They do and I have, argued with white knuckles and pursed lips over these and dozens of other points of doctrine.
However we all agree that the JW’s and Mormons (among many others) worship false pagan gods, a capital crime and one quite indicative of a persons unfavorable state before the true God of the bible. They are not Christians. It is once again, a trivial matter to demonstrate to anyone who cares that fatally heretical doctrine (and what that is) and or a flagrantly sinful worldly life bring with them the command to Christians in the scriptures to denounce and expose such for the sake of Christ’s name and the purity of the church. Yet with love and humility in the hope that they turn from their sin to the Lord.
[quote]forlife wrote:Which is exactly my point. These religions represent millions of Christians who have read the same bible, and are every bit as earnest and faithful as you, yet according to you they are fatally flawed.
You have faith.
They have faith.
Yet your conclusions about Christ and salvation are diametrically different.
Clearly, faith can lead to fundamentally opposed conclusions, and thus it us useless as a tool for knowing truth. [/quote]And you have faith that faith doesn’t work. So what? I am the one person here who is NOT trying to prove anything to anyone because I know that it is entirely pointless to attempt to PROVE anything to anyone not already living in the same faith I am. Haven’t you noticed this at all. You are, to use Ephrem’s brilliant observation, viewing the system from within the system attempting to make pronouncements of ultimate import about the system, to paraphrase. Of course faith is of no conscious good to you. You keep thinking, quite understandably, that I’m telling you that human faith is the only source of truth to someone like you still dead in sin. Not so. Jesus is the “author and finisher” of saving faith and it is the Father’s “gift” to those chosen by Him from all eternity. I’m not trying to convince you folks in the conventional, humanistic, rationalistic, Thomistic, Aristotelian, Arminian sense. That is impossible. I’m just telling you. And I’ll patiently tell you again. EVERYBODY is conceived and born dead in sin. Being Catholic or a JW or Mormon or Gay, or a fornicator or murderer or rapist does not condemn anybody. They were born that way. I was born that way. SinS are the empirically observable manifestations of SIN.
Someone who decides the RCC is full of pagan superstition and simply stops embracing the gospel at all is just as damned as they were before. Like I told you. You could cease your relationships with men and return faithfully to your wife and children and go to the same hell you are now. The same one I deserve. The same one my pastor deserves and he will tell you that without a moments hesitation. Works of alleged righteousness are the most heinous of all abominations before the eyes of the holy God because they make of no effect the sacrifice of His son. Paul said so. If works or the illicitly perceived goodnuuff life satisfied God then Christ died in vain. People could just be goodnuff.
There are things in the bible that only make sense if, and ONLY if, you start out believing the bible to be true.
Christians know this and see nothing wrong with it.
I’d like to get each one of them on trial for a murder they didn’t commit, and have the prosecutor start with “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the testimony you’re about to hear may SEEM impossible to believe at first, and this evidence may seem shaky, BUT, if you start out believing that this (man/woman) is guilty, you will see that it all points to their guilt!”
I think most of them would suddenly start screaming that you should look at evidence and draw conclusions from it rather than start out believing something and forcing the “evidence” to support what you believe.