Should America Elect a Polytheist?

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
Among a bunch of other bibilical verses that are blatantly polythiestic but are sideways reasoned out of being so. In 2 Corinthians 4:4 it says; “Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.”[/quote]

You said earth, not world. Big difference when it comes to theology. Reason number one why Bibles should have stayed in Latin and Greek.

For your sake and the salvation of my soul, I’ll put you temporarily on ignore. When you learn theology on your time of not “making a rebuttal,” you might have some ammo to actually use against Christians.

God bless and I pray each day for you.

Chris IV

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I never said wrong, you must be projecting.

And your options in civilized society are different types of underwear or change your pants every day.[/quote]

Reminds me of a joke I heard from my uncle.

There was a Navy officer and a Marine officer using the bathroom. Both of them were using the urinals, and the Marine officer finished first. He zipped up and turned around to leave without washing his hands.

The Navy officer watched him over his shoulder and said to the Marine officer on his way out “In the Navy, they teach us to wash our hands after using the bathroom.”

In response, the Marine officer replied “In the Marines, they taught us not to piss on ourselves.”

I guess Catholics just learned how not to shit on ourselves. ;)[/quote]

Or they have pretended that their shit does not stink for so long that they actually believe it. [/quote]

First one to smell it dealt it.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

First one to smell it dealt it.[/quote]

Another classic T Nation thread comes to an end…

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

First one to smell it dealt it.[/quote]

Another classic T Nation thread comes to an end…[/quote]

…hey, I’m not the one that made this thread…oh yeah I did. Well, back the original question. Stop getting off topic!

Should America Elect a Polytheist that pretends to be a Christian?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Uh, I thought I did??? Well, I’ll try again. What I mean is very simply this, that a theist realizes that they themselves are not the final say and that they have to answer for there actions. An atheist, ultimately, doesn’t have to answer for shit, because they don’t have to ultimately answer for their decisions and behavior.
You believe in moral relativism, theists do not. We believe in consequences you do not. So in the end, atheists can act in there own interest with out fear. Theists cannot.

Like I said, I would vote for an atheist who supports my views and beliefs. I have never met one that does though.

If you know of anybody who is running for public office anywhere who is an atheist, but supports the views I described, please present them. I’d like to know more about them, if nothing else, as a study.

BTW, I did not say they lack the ability to serve the public, per se, I said they lack the ability to be submissive, with out threat of force.[/quote]

I answer to the people I interact with in day to day life. If I act like a tool, I will be treated accordingly. Why should I care? Because when it comes to interactions with people, I like to be treated with respect.

The Golden Rule is hardly a new concept.[/quote]

Nope, it’s Christian.[/quote]

Totally.

Nobody else ever thought of it, ever.

It is not as if we had whole areas in our brain to empathize with other people either.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Uh, I thought I did??? Well, I’ll try again. What I mean is very simply this, that a theist realizes that they themselves are not the final say and that they have to answer for there actions. An atheist, ultimately, doesn’t have to answer for shit, because they don’t have to ultimately answer for their decisions and behavior.
You believe in moral relativism, theists do not. We believe in consequences you do not. So in the end, atheists can act in there own interest with out fear. Theists cannot.

Like I said, I would vote for an atheist who supports my views and beliefs. I have never met one that does though.

If you know of anybody who is running for public office anywhere who is an atheist, but supports the views I described, please present them. I’d like to know more about them, if nothing else, as a study.

BTW, I did not say they lack the ability to serve the public, per se, I said they lack the ability to be submissive, with out threat of force.[/quote]

I answer to the people I interact with in day to day life. If I act like a tool, I will be treated accordingly. Why should I care? Because when it comes to interactions with people, I like to be treated with respect.

The Golden Rule is hardly a new concept.[/quote]

Nope, it’s Christian.[/quote]

Totally.

Nobody else ever thought of it, ever.

It is not as if we had whole areas in our brain to empathize with other people either.[/quote]

Alright, who thought of it first. Link plz.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The fact that the same principle is inherent in almost every ethical system man has devised should be rather telling.

[i]“Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.” - Isocrates

“What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others.” - Epictetus

“Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” - Confucius

“If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.” - Mozi

“You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” - Leviticus 19:18

“Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.” - Baha’u’llah

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” - Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31

“One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.” - Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)

“Nothing which breathes, which exists, which lives, or which has essence or potential of life, should be destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or denied of its essence or potential. In support of this Truth, I ask you a question - ‘Is sorrow or pain desirable to you ?’ If you say ‘yes it is’, it would be a lie. If you say, ‘No, It is not’ you will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or pain is not desirable to you, so it is to all which breathe, exist, live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is undesirable, and painful, and repugnant.” - Acaranga Sutra[/i]

These are mere droplets in a much larger pool of collective quotes that highlight this common understanding. A lot of the belief systems that hold the Golden Rule are otherwise incompatible, and yet it remains.[/quote]

Makavali…couldn’t you have given us the dates for each of the above?
We want to know who invented the Golden Rule.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Should America Elect a Polytheist that pretends to be a Christian? [/quote]

It’s not a factor. Let me know if Romney sends troops after Catholics, or something.

BTW, Mormons aren’t polytheistic.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

First one to smell it dealt it.[/quote]

Another classic T Nation thread comes to an end…[/quote]

…hey, I’m not the one that made this thread…oh yeah I did. Well, back the original question. Stop getting off topic!

Should America Elect a Polytheist that pretends to be a Christian? [/quote]

How about we keep religion out of it and choose someone who will actually do a good job? For example, if you were bleeding to death after a horrible accident (may it never happen) you wouldn’t ask the doctor what religion that he or she is before emergency surgery.

Well that’s how we should choose our leaders. Because right now under the horrific leadership of Baracka Obama we are sinking quickly. Does it matter that he says he’s a Christian? He sucks regardless of what religion he is.

The atheists are far more worried about someone’s religion than I am. I’m after success, we need a comeback economically. Jewish, Christian, Mormon, Atheist, Agnostic, male, female and yes even homosexual!----I DON’T CARE!

As long as that person is able to raft a reasonable plan to:

-Dramatically reduce government spending by eliminating entire agency’s.

-Get us out of debt.

-Lower taxes.

-And basically let states run their own affairs.

SIMPLE!

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Uh, I thought I did??? Well, I’ll try again. What I mean is very simply this, that a theist realizes that they themselves are not the final say and that they have to answer for there actions. An atheist, ultimately, doesn’t have to answer for shit, because they don’t have to ultimately answer for their decisions and behavior.
You believe in moral relativism, theists do not. We believe in consequences you do not. So in the end, atheists can act in there own interest with out fear. Theists cannot.

Like I said, I would vote for an atheist who supports my views and beliefs. I have never met one that does though.

If you know of anybody who is running for public office anywhere who is an atheist, but supports the views I described, please present them. I’d like to know more about them, if nothing else, as a study.

BTW, I did not say they lack the ability to serve the public, per se, I said they lack the ability to be submissive, with out threat of force.[/quote]

I answer to the people I interact with in day to day life. If I act like a tool, I will be treated accordingly. Why should I care? Because when it comes to interactions with people, I like to be treated with respect.

The Golden Rule is hardly a new concept.[/quote]

Nope, it’s Christian.[/quote]

Totally.

Nobody else ever thought of it, ever.

It is not as if we had whole areas in our brain to empathize with other people either.[/quote]

Alright, who thought of it first. Link plz.[/quote]

Is googling so hard?

Several are pre Christian.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Uh, I thought I did??? Well, I’ll try again. What I mean is very simply this, that a theist realizes that they themselves are not the final say and that they have to answer for there actions. An atheist, ultimately, doesn’t have to answer for shit, because they don’t have to ultimately answer for their decisions and behavior.
You believe in moral relativism, theists do not. We believe in consequences you do not. So in the end, atheists can act in there own interest with out fear. Theists cannot.

Like I said, I would vote for an atheist who supports my views and beliefs. I have never met one that does though.

If you know of anybody who is running for public office anywhere who is an atheist, but supports the views I described, please present them. I’d like to know more about them, if nothing else, as a study.

BTW, I did not say they lack the ability to serve the public, per se, I said they lack the ability to be submissive, with out threat of force.[/quote]

I answer to the people I interact with in day to day life. If I act like a tool, I will be treated accordingly. Why should I care? Because when it comes to interactions with people, I like to be treated with respect.

The Golden Rule is hardly a new concept.[/quote]

Nope, it’s Christian.[/quote]

Totally.

Nobody else ever thought of it, ever.

It is not as if we had whole areas in our brain to empathize with other people either.[/quote]

Alright, who thought of it first. Link plz.[/quote]

Is googling so hard?

Several are pre Christian.

[/quote]

Fair enough…Still a Christian tenet though :slight_smile:

[quote]ZEB wrote:[quote]Brother Chris wrote:First one to smell it dealt it.[/quote]Another classic T Nation thread comes to an end…[/quote]LOL!!!

[quote]pat wrote:BTW, Mormons aren’t polytheistic.[/quote]Oh boy (said with a sly, apprehensive, playfully sarcastic look on my face). Come on Chris. Where are those loyalties of yours? The truth or Pat? I KNOW you have had your nose in the source copy and have waded through the semantic shuck n jive of the LDS crew on this. I know that because I KNOW you. You don’t have to beat your brother up to show him his error here. You are doing God, your church and even Pat himself no favors by allowing him to persist in this mule headed error which is little more than unwillingness to concede that I was actually correct when this big controversy was raging.

Oh he’ll jump up and down and scream about how self important I think I am and how he doesn’t care what I say, but he’s a liar which I am most assuredly going to demonstrate in due time. He is at present flatly incapable of allowing the simple phrase… “I stand corrected” to fall from his lips in my direction at least. It’s actually not that difficult when the truth is more important than saving one’s own pitiful face. That goes for me too btw. I HATE being wrong, but when it’s clear that you are, the honorable course is to simply admit it, disarm your adversaries and move on. Let’s see if Pat can do that.

And Pat? Your best days are ahead of you my friend. This may not be the right thread Christopher, but I’m not lettin this go. You would have NO problem straightening ME out if I had made this demonstrably false statement. There’s a golden opportunity for you here… and Pat. Maybe me too, because regardless of what you Catholics may think I do value my interaction with you guys. I mean that quite sincerely. Toward you too Pat. The actual point of this post has nothing to do with Mormonism and or polytheism BTW.

Sorry about my ten thousandth hijack. Yes’ I’m bad for that.

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The fact that the same principle is inherent in almost every ethical system man has devised should be rather telling.

[i]“Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.” - Isocrates

“What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others.” - Epictetus

“Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” - Confucius

“If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.” - Mozi

“You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” - Leviticus 19:18

“Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.” - Baha’u’llah

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” - Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31

“One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.” - Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)

“Nothing which breathes, which exists, which lives, or which has essence or potential of life, should be destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or denied of its essence or potential. In support of this Truth, I ask you a question - ‘Is sorrow or pain desirable to you ?’ If you say ‘yes it is’, it would be a lie. If you say, ‘No, It is not’ you will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or pain is not desirable to you, so it is to all which breathe, exist, live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is undesirable, and painful, and repugnant.” - Acaranga Sutra[/i]

These are mere droplets in a much larger pool of collective quotes that highlight this common understanding. A lot of the belief systems that hold the Golden Rule are otherwise incompatible, and yet it remains.[/quote]

Makavali…couldn’t you have given us the dates for each of the above?
We want to know who invented the Golden Rule.[/quote]

I have rough (very rough) dates for the following. These dates are roughly when the Golden Rule in some form was recorded from these traditions.

Code of Hammurabi (Babylon), 1780 BC

The Eloquent Peasant (Egypt), circa 2040-1650 BC

Confucius, circa 500 BC

Siddhartha Gautama, circa 525 BC

Mahabharata, circa 3000 BC

Talmud, circa 1300 BC

Zoroastrian tradition, circa 600 BC

Jainism, circa 500 BC

Taoism, circa 500 BC

Jesus of Nazareth, circa 30 AD

Koran, circa 620 AD

Sikhism, circa 1500 AD

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:[quote]Brother Chris wrote:First one to smell it dealt it.[/quote]Another classic T Nation thread comes to an end…[/quote]LOL!!!

[quote]pat wrote:BTW, Mormons aren’t polytheistic.[/quote]Oh boy (said with a sly, apprehensive, playfully sarcastic look on my face). Come on Chris. Where are those loyalties of yours? The truth or Pat? I KNOW you have had your nose in the source copy and have waded through the semantic shuck n jive of the LDS crew on this. I know that because I KNOW you. You don’t have to beat your brother up to show him his error here. You are doing God, your church and even Pat himself no favors by allowing him to persist in this mule headed error which is little more than unwillingness to concede that I was actually correct when this big controversy was raging.

Oh he’ll jump up and down and scream about how self important I think I am and how he doesn’t care what I say, but he’s a liar which I am most assuredly going to demonstrate in due time. He is at present flatly incapable of allowing the simple phrase… “I stand corrected” to fall from his lips in my direction at least. It’s actually not that difficult when the truth is more important than saving one’s own pitiful face. That goes for me too btw. I HATE being wrong, but when it’s clear that you are, the honorable course is to simply admit it, disarm your adversaries and move on. Let’s see if Pat can do that.

And Pat? Your best days are ahead of you my friend. This may not be the right thread Christopher, but I’m not lettin this go. You would have NO problem straightening ME out if I had made this demonstrably false statement. There’s a golden opportunity for you here… and Pat. Maybe me too, because regardless of what you Catholics may think I do value my interaction with you guys. I mean that quite sincerely. Toward you too Pat. The actual point of this post has nothing to do with Mormonism and or polytheism BTW.

Sorry about my ten thousandth hijack. Yes’ I’m bad for that.

[/quote]

And I thought you put me on ignore :). Sorry dude, I am going to trust actual Mormons to profess to me what they believe over a non-mormon. I don’t care for Mormanism all that much, but I honestly don’t know that much about them. I know a little, but bottom line, they say they are not polytheistic, they say they love Christ, I am not one to judge them for it.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Should America Elect a Polytheist that pretends to be a Christian? [/quote]

It’s not a factor. Let me know if Romney sends troops after Catholics, or something.
[/quote]

No worry, Time and its ilk are sending their troops: http://catholicleague.org/release.php?id=2203

[quote]Makavali wrote:

I have rough (very rough) dates for the following. These dates are roughly when the Golden Rule in some form was recorded from these traditions.

Code of Hammurabi (Babylon), 1780 BC

The Eloquent Peasant (Egypt), circa 2040-1650 BC

Confucius, circa 500 BC

Siddhartha Gautama, circa 525 BC

Mahabharata, circa 3000 BC

Talmud, circa 1300 BC

Zoroastrian tradition, circa 600 BC

Jainism, circa 500 BC

Taoism, circa 500 BC

Jesus of Nazareth, circa 30 AD

Koran, circa 620 AD

Sikhism, circa 1500 AD

[/quote]

Awesome thanks. Mak you are a gentle-pooddie and a scholar. Looks like Mahabharata wins by a mile:

‘This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you.’
– Mahabharata 5:1517, from the Vedic tradition of India, circa 3000 BC

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The truth or Pat?
[/quote]

Pat knows where my loyalties are. We have had private discussions, but as I have also pointed out. I am not a theologian capable of seeing the distinctions in order to prove or see if there is heresy in all cases. And, just like one should use prudence in judging if a sin is mortal, one should also be slow to judge if something is heresy when you do not know all the facts.

I can say this on this matter. The Catholic Church does not recognize the current baptism of the LDS faith because of their theology on God. That is serious.

I will explain…the Church is lenient, it doesn’t require you get vetted and get your very own ‘baptismal qualified’ tag, atheists can baptize – as long as they baptize with the intention of the Church.

For the Church to declare the current LDS baptism invalid means one of two things, 1) they are not using the formula or 2) their theology has been studied to the point to realise that they do not in fact baptize with the same intent as the Church.

The Catholic Church does not recognize baptism as valid within the LDS faith because the Church has seen that by LDS theology, it does not hold to the one Trinitarian Godhead, but the multiple gods, Jesus Christ being among them.

Now, this isn’t a judgement on what individual Mormons, Bishops, Temples, &c. because of the somewhat autonomy of the Bishops on doctrine and the fact that just as Catholics can (not as in they are allowed or given permission to, but they have the natural ability to) hold heretical ideas, so can Mormons differ from the theology of the LDS faith.

Now, does this mean we get to bash our Mormon friends? No, how about make fun of them? No, maybe tease them about their underwear – kidding.

No, we still have to treat them like the rest of the world, children of God. Further, I think discourse would be much more fruitful if we distinguish between what the LDS faith holds and what individual Mormon’s believe. Bishops have the tendency to change doctrine because of continual revelation (I think that is the name).

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Now, does this mean we get to bash our Mormon friends? No, how about make fun of them? >>>[/quote]How about lovingly declare their pagan false god/s, false savior and false gospel what they are and call them to repentance unto salvation in the one true and living God and His Christ? That ring a biblical bell down in there somewhere? No huh? [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< No, we still have to treat them like the rest of the world, children of God. >>>[/quote] 1st John 3:10 ESV"By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. Maybe worshiping false Gods and proclaiming a false Christ is practicing righteousness to your magesterium (maybe not), but forgetting about Mormons for a minute, the apostle John, one of the “sons of thunder”, the “one whom Jesus loved”, who wrote a magnificent gospel, 3 epistles, the apocalypse on the isle of Patmos and to whom Jesus entrusted His beloved mother? That John? He seems to believe there are what appears to be implied by him, a rather significant number of “children of the devil”. Who do you suppose they might be? (he kinda gives it away)[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Further, I think discourse would be much more fruitful if we distinguish between what the LDS faith holds and what individual Mormon’s believe. Bishops have the tendency to change doctrine because of continual revelation (I think that is the name). [/quote] I shudder to think how many lost souls will be roaming the lake of fire searching for the Catholic that lied to them. Fruitful discourse? These people are dying in an idolatrous pagan religion that you have just told me is bad enough for even your very permissive church to declare a polytheistic propagator of false gods. Are you wiling to do this with your own religion? How bout we take a trip through here http://forums.catholic.com/ (I already have, quite extensively over the last year) and see how many people don’t actually hold almost anything their alleged church teaches? Are they allowed to do that? Trust me. No informed mormon nor their bishops will defy the quorum of twelve who absolutely proclaim the polytheistic godhead and absolutely polytheistic eternal progression I have been forever telling you guys they believe.

[quote]pat wrote:<<< And I thought you put me on ignore :). >>>[/quote] I would never do that to you Pat. It would be rude. I have lost a lot of respect for you that I desperately tried to hang on to, but that doesn’t mean I don’t still like you and want to see what you have to say. You said a while back to Elder Forlife that “to be certain about anything you’d have to know everything”. A towering epistemological profundity. Even though you do not conduct your intellectual life according to this utterly foundational Christian truth, I told you at the time wadda positively BRILLIANT statement that was and I meant it. I wouldn’t wanna miss out on another one of those. [quote]pat wrote:<<< Sorry dude, I am going to trust actual Mormons to profess to me what they believe >>>[/quote]Big mistake. They’re liars too. Take it from one who knows firsthand. Well, they’re deceived. So they are hence themselves incapable of anything but deception. I have spent a whoooooooole lotta time with them and 100 times more in their documents. I know what I’m talkin about.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Now, does this mean we get to bash our Mormon friends? No, how about make fun of them? >>>[/quote]How about lovingly declare their pagan false god/s, false savior and false gospel what they are and call them to repentance unto salvation in the one true and living God and His Christ? That ring a biblical bell down in there somewhere? No huh?
[/quote]

You done with the straw man argument, Tirib? Just wondering, I make a statement that their baptism is invalid and then you go on to try to show us how lacking we are because I didn’t go into full detail of what we have said to the Mormons.

Have you even read what the two recent Popes have said to the various religions around the world? Pope John Paul the Great has some great words for them. Maybe you should learn what they have said and what the Church says before you tell me (incorrectly) what we say, believe, do not believe, and do not do or say.

And, Tirib – I guess I need to make myself theologically clear…when I said we are all children of God, I was not speaking of the supernatural children of God (those with the entitlement to pray the Our Father), I was speaking in the fact that he along with our parents co-created us in his Image.

But, yes I understand the difference between the children of God and the children of Satan when John speaks of it: baptism. Though, that does bring up an interesting point; Calvinists don’t believe that baptism saves you, that it does not regenerate. I guess Peter was talking out the side of his neck, that old Catholic. He was mistaken/misspoke/wrong when he said baptism saves you now.

But I have to ask then. What is the real difference between children of God and children of Satan then? They took a bath while someone said meaningless words?

But, all that doesn’t matter. My point leads up to this fact, our enemy is not flesh and blood. Christians are called to act in faith, hope, and charity (charity being 1st among the three as the other two disappear once in Heaven). Now, if you want to discuss what those terms actually mean…that is for another time.

  • I think you broke out the whole John 1:12-13, which you know, I didn’t see coming before I even responded to your request. But, I’d like to point out a few things in case you did, and if you didn’t – when you do.

“But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

This verse is very telling, “as many as receive him,” is a little ambiguous though. I had my definition of it back in the day, when I attended a Calvinist community. Meant that some Jewish boy said the same words all my friends did, “I accept Jesus into my life.” Though I do find it a little repugnant to the nostrils that a Calvinist would think he could “accept” Jesus, as if he had a choice, ha!

Later during my stay at the Calvinist community, I came up with this definition: those who live their lives as though they are another Christ, as though they are Christians. Well, that definition left some serious room to be had. What does it even mean to be a Christian. I knew what I couldn’t do, 10 commandments. Couldn’t worship false gods, don’t take the Lord’s name in vain, don’t steal, murder, cheat, lust, &c. But, what did Christians do, they couldn’t be people that just didn’t do anything. It’s a little difficult to identify people by what they don’t do, people don’t do a lot of things.

So, I looked, I found out that Jesus told us that, “Not all those who say ‘Lord, Lord’, but only those who do the will of my Father will join me in heaven.”

What really surprised me though, was that Jesus told us that if we did something we’d be rewarded. That concept was kept from me, even though it was in the Bible. Because we were only saved by faith! Though there was wiggle room to get up higher on the food chain if you had big faith compared to little faith.

My grandma, that ol’ superstitious woman – used to tell me not to use needles for black magic and stuff (I guess she believed in evil, demons, possessions, or something), crazy Catholic lady – sat me down to read the Bible with her (I know you’re thinking, but she was a tough woman and the Catholic authorities would have had a hell of time trying to take her Bible away from her). I had no idea at the time, but the Sunday she came to visit was the Sunday that the reading of the beatitudes were being read during the Holy Mass. Guess what I found out, “Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called Children of God.”

Peace-makers…I thought Christians were Children of God? Thought you had to say some ritualistic words in order to receive him and become sons of God…now Jesus is telling me I have to do something, I have to do the will of God, I have to be a peace-maker, too?

Jesus was guilty of preaching salvation by works, in my book! Thankfully, though, I stopped relying on my weak human intellect and allowed the Church, which is the bulwark and pillar of Truth, guide me and help me form my conscience and help me form my faith, instead of relying on the wisdom of men and relied on the Wisdom of God, which is Jesus and his final Revelation given to the Church, which he protects by endowing it with the Holy Ghost forever, because the Holy Ghost can neither deceive, nor be deceived.

Glad I don’t have to put on the Pope hat every time I read the Bible to figure out what I read, now I can just sit at the feet of the Lord like Mary and let him and his Bride, Our Mother, form my Faith to the Faith and my will to the Will of the Father.