[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
puppet masters
[/quote]
Yes, I am a humble servant of the Body of Christ. Unlike the vainglorious Protestant who relies on his own logic and private interpretation of my Church’s Canonical Scriptures.
Next.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pegasus3 wrote:
I do not believe for one second and never will, that an all powerful god, infinitely wise (think about that) would care if we belived in him or not. If that was a big deal to him, we can be certain that he is an asshole. People that demand that kind of worship on Earth are called Dictators and we all know what huge ballbags they are. We know it’s wrong. No god worth their salt would demand that babies get baptised, or that people pray at certain times on certain days, wear certain clothes, eat certain food etc.
This being is a god, the creator of time, energy, all life, by definition it created itself perfectly. It would be SOOOOOOO far above that kind of thinking, would they not!? I would hope so. If they were not, would that not pose some rather worrying questions as to what kind of being this is? What kind of mind they have, the reason for creating life in the first place? Religion was an early attempt to understand the world around us. It’s our nature. There are tribes in jungles who have never and hopefully will never hear of ‘our’ religions. Do they stand a chance with god? By some reasoning here and elsewhere, they are hell bound. If not, why not? If so, it it fair? Because they do not know what to worship, are they exempt?
[/quote]
LMAO Thanks man![/quote]
x2
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
puppet masters
[/quote]
Yes, I am a humble servant of the Body of Christ. Unlike the vainglorious Protestant who relies on his own logic and private interpretation of my Church’s Canonical Scriptures.
Next.[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
puppet masters
[/quote]
Yes, I am a humble servant of the Body of Christ. Unlike the vainglorious Protestant who relies on his own logic and private interpretation of my Church’s Canonical Scriptures.
Next.[/quote]
Except I do have free will, I do have control over my own actions. I guess you can considered me counter-culture, going against the grain of society.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
puppet masters
[/quote]
Yes, I am a humble servant of the Body of Christ. Unlike the vainglorious Protestant who relies on his own logic and private interpretation of my Church’s Canonical Scriptures.
Next.[/quote]
Except I do have free will, I do have control over my own actions. I guess you can considered me counter-culture, going against the grain of society.[/quote] [/quote]
Granted, but every Hare Krishan chanting doofus does the same.
Just because the mainstream is, as a rule, almost always wrong, does not make you right.
But, then again, there are worse things than being able to draw from two thousand years of moral teachings, I guess a more nuanced approach will come with the passage of time.
I have nothing against the Catholic Church, but there is no need to defend the flat out ridiculous.
F.e. pill as an abortificient, well, one could see it that way, hardcore stance against condoms, um, please.
edit: I haz fixed quote funktion. I will not suffer disorderly quoting.
[quote]orion wrote:
Granted, but every Hare Krishan chanting doofus does the same.
[/quote]
Not sure who that is, I’ll have to look them up.
True.
The Nation needs to fix that quotes get messed up just because there isn’t a space between YouTube link and quote function.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
puppet masters
[/quote]
Yes, I am a humble servant of the Body of Christ. Unlike the vainglorious Protestant who relies on his own logic and private interpretation of my Church’s Canonical Scriptures.
Next.[/quote]
Except I do have free will, I do have control over my own actions. I guess you can considered me counter-culture, going against the grain of society.[/quote] [/quote]
Granted, but every Hare Krishan chanting doofus does the same.
Just because the mainstream is, as a rule, almost always wrong, does not make you right.
But, then again, there are worse things than being able to draw from two thousand years of moral teachings, I guess a more nuanced approach will come with the passage of time.
I have nothing against the Catholic Church, but there is no need to defend the flat out ridiculous.
F.e. pill as an abortificient, well, one could see it that way, hardcore stance against condoms, um, please.
edit: I haz fixed ze quote funktion. I vill not suffer ze disorderly quoting.
[/quote]
One tiny little fix there for you.
You might be more succesful with googling Hare Krishna.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< vainglorious Protestant who relies on his own logic and private interpretation of my Church’s Canonical Scriptures. >>>[/quote]See now here’s where you go like really drastically wrong Chris. You take the magesturium’s word that Peter (2nd Peter 1:16 and following) is there contrasting themselves, the body of bishops, with everybody else as to who has authority to interpret scripture. If you simply let him speak he’s not actually talking about interpretation in the sense of getting at the meaning of scripture at all. He’s talking about how scripture came to be in the first place. However the infallible bible butchers have spoken so it’s too late to turn back now.
Here’s a free general lesson on how we interpret scripture and how they (and by extension you) interpret scripture.
Romans 10:13-14 Now follow closely, this is tough stuff here.
Stay with me. Those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. By utterly unavoidable concrete implication, those who do NOT call on the name of the Lord will NOT be saved. With me so far? They cannot call on someone on whom they have never believed as a consequence of never having heard of Him. Therefore those who have never heard “the name of the Lord” will NOT be saved. Hence Jesus’s own commandment to go into all the world and make disciples. Hence the apostles being willing to endure horrific hardship, persecution and death to bring this Jesus to those who have never heard. Simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ which will probably have even the pagans nodding their heads.
Now here is the Catholic interpretation of this principle: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ignorance
[quote]Ignorance
(Latin in, not, and gnarus, knowing)
Ignorance is lack of knowledge about a thing in a being capable of knowing. Fundamentally speaking and with regard to a given object ignorance is the outcome of the limitations of our intellect or of the obscurity of the matter itself. In this article it is the ethical aspect and consequences of ignorance that are directly under consideration. From this point of view, since only voluntary and free acts are imputable, ignorance which either destroys or lessens the first-named characteristic is a factor to be reckoned with. It is customary then to narrow somewhat the definition already given of it. It will, therefore, be taken to mean the absence of information which one is required to have. The mere want of knowledge without connoting any requirement on the part of a person to possess it may be called nescience.
So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of “moral diligence”. This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance. We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circumstances. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the obligation mentioned above is to be interpreted strictly and exclusively as the duty incumbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the needed knowledge. In other words the mere fact that one is bound by some extrinsic title to do something the performance of which would have actually, though not necessarily, given the required information, is negligible. When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine.
The area covered by human ignorance is clearly a vast one. For our purposes, however, three divisions may be noted.
* Ignorance of law, when one is unaware of the existence of the law itself, or at least that a particular case is comprised under its provisions.
* Ignorance of the fact, when not the relation of something to the law but the thing itself or some circumstance is unknown.
* Ignorance of penalty, when a person is not cognizant that a sanction has been attached to a particular crime. This is especially to be considered when there is question of more serious punishment.
We must also note that ignorance may precede, accompany, or follow an act of our will. It is therefore said to be antecedent, concomitant, or consequent. Antecedent ignorance is in no sense voluntary, neither is the act resulting from it; it precedes any voluntary failure to inquire. Consequent ignorance, on the other hand, is so called because it is the result of a perverse frame of mind choosing, either directly or indirectly, to be ignorant. Concomitant ignorance is concerned with the will to act in a given contingency; it implies that the real character of what is done is unknown to the agent, but his attitude is such that, were he acquainted with the actual state of things, he would go on just the same. Keeping these distinctions in mind we are in a position to lay down certain statements of doctrine.
Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. The perverse temper of soul, which in this case is supposed, retains, of course, such malice as it had. Vincible ignorance, being in some way voluntary, does not permit a man to escape responsibility for the moral deformity of his deeds; he is held to be guilty and in general the more guilty in proportion as his ignorance is more voluntary. Hence, the essential thing to remember is that the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.
It must not be forgotten that, although vincible ignorance leaves the culpability of a person intact, still it does make the act less voluntary than if it were done with full knowledge. This holds good except perhaps with regard to the sort of ignorance termed affected. Here theologians are not agreed as to whether it increases or diminishes a man’s moral liability. The solution is possibly to be had from a consideration of the motive which influences one in choosing purposely to be ignorant. For instance, a man who would refuse to learn the doctrines of the Church from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to embrace them would certainly be in a bad plight. Still he would be less guilty than the man whose neglect to know the teachings of the Church was inspired by sheer scorn of her authority. Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or fact, exempts one from the penalty which may have been provided by positive legislation. Even vincible ignorance, either of the law or fact, which is not crass, excuses one from the punishment. Mere lack of knowledge of the sanction does not free one from the penalty except in cases of censures. It is true then that any sort of ignorance which is not itself grievously sinful excuses, because for the incurring of censures contumacy is required. Vincible and consequent ignorance about the duties of our state of life or the truths of faith necessary for salvation is, of course, sinful. Ignorance of the nature or effects of an act does not make it invalid if everything else requisite for its validity be present. For instance, one who knows nothing of the efficacy of baptism validly baptizes, provided that he employs the matter and form and has the intention of doing what the Church does.[/quote]They take a simple elegant, straightforward Gospel truth accessible to a child and turn it into a convoluted meandering festering intellectual scab that a scholar of linguistic wizardry would have to read 12 times to comprehend. It is a great steaming pile of bovine fecal matter Chris and though different is every bit as deceptive and abominable as the gnosticism that plagued the first few centuries of the church age.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
People who are not fully self aware of the resurrected Christ dwelling in their repentant hearts by faith are damned until they hear, repent and believe. There is NO SUCH THING AS A REDEEMED HUMAN BEING WHO DOES NOT KNOW THEY’RE ONE AND WHY. Invincible ignorance is a lie Chris and Oh how Satan rejoices as he hears this deadly invention of his proclaimed as gospel truth.
[/quote]
Or they are damned just for the simple fact that they are not chosen, according to you.
Jesus Christ died for EVERYONE, and every person is invited to repent and follow Christ. It’s not a singular event, it takes constant effort. People who were once wicked can repent and become righteous. Conversely, people who are righteous can turn and be wicked.
Ezekiel 18:
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
calls
[/quote]
See, even the bible says you have to do some kind of work. Therefore, not Faith Alone, but faith and works.
So, why do you leave Peter because of Judas?
[quote]pegasus3 wrote:
I do not believe for one second and never will, that an all powerful god, infinitely wise (think about that) would care if we belived in him or not. If that was a big deal to him, we can be certain that he is an asshole. People that demand that kind of worship on Earth are called Dictators and we all know what huge ballbags they are. We know it’s wrong. No god worth their salt would demand that babies get baptised, or that people pray at certain times on certain days, wear certain clothes, eat certain food etc.
This being is a god, the creator of time, energy, all life, by definition it created itself perfectly. It would be SOOOOOOO far above that kind of thinking, would they not!? I would hope so. If they were not, would that not pose some rather worrying questions as to what kind of being this is? What kind of mind they have, the reason for creating life in the first place? Religion was an early attempt to understand the world around us. It’s our nature. There are tribes in jungles who have never and hopefully will never hear of ‘our’ religions. Do they stand a chance with god? By some reasoning here and elsewhere, they are hell bound. If not, why not? If so, it it fair? Because they do not know what to worship, are they exempt?
[/quote]
In a sense, you’re somewhat right. In a way God really doesn’t need us to believe in Him. He doesn’t get extra mojo points every time someone believes. He’s perfectly fine without us. If everyone chose to disbelieve, God would still be the same God. He still wouldn’t lose a piece of himself. God by definition isn’t self created. Rather, he’s uncreated. A static being that is outside time, doesn’t change, doesn’t improve because there is no improvement to be made. Anything less and you could name limitations on his being. Change is when we change our position in relation to God.
Sin doesn’t hurt God’s essence, rather he loves what he created and it’s an injustice to see creatures turn to something that isn’t ideal, i.e. not ideal for themselves. If God is the ultimate source of power, bliss, and all things desirable wouldn’t it be a shame if people settle for less?
And that’s what separate’s God from dictators. He doesn’t force humans to love him. Forced love is rape. Rather he let’s people do it on their own accord, which is more rewarding. And for the people who settle for less, he will give them what they really want too. He respects their choice. The Bible never says that those who are in Hell would leave if they could. Some people we see alive today would rather suffer in their own misery rather than enjoy life.
The tribes who don’t hear about God? Well, if he knew they would desire him, he is capable of finding a way. Sometimes those people get visions of missionaries before they come. A loving God would give anyone a chance if he knew they would believe.
And about demanding babies be baptized? I haven’t found any such demands in the bible. Any other commandment serves a purpose, kind of like when (if) your mom told you to eat your vegetables and not just candy.
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:<<< Perhaps I didn’t catch your drift correctly from earlier in the thread(your arguments get convoluted to say the least), but I thought you were saying that misunderstanding the triune nature of God equates to worshiping a false idol. >>>[/quote]DENYING the triune God, the full deity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as constituting the ONE and only true and living God while worshiping ANY other alternative IS worshiping a false idol. Nobody “understands” the triune nature of the Godhead nor is it necessary that they do. Only that they accept it because that is His own revelation of who and what He is. [quote]Quick Ben wrote:<<< Pat’s point of view is more along the lines of what I’m used to hearing from Christians. >>>[/quote]In this day and age I’m sure it is. [quote]Quick Ben wrote:<<< Besides, if our salvation depends on Jesus alone, and this or that person follows Jesus and prays to the Father through Jesus and lives by his example, how can you say that person has not been saved? Because he thinks God, Jesus, and the Spirit are three separate entities? >>>[/quote]If you are referring to the Mormons specifically then yes. God does not allow His creatures to independently contrive whatever version of Himself they like best. He reveals Himself as absolutely ONE God eternally existing in three distinct persons. This is one thing Catholics and ALL orthodox protestants agree on. His triune nature aside from being the impossible to exhaustively comprehend yet clear teaching of scripture, is also utterly intrinsic to the eternal covenant conceived in eternity among the persons of the Godhead. Conceived by the Father, accomplished by the Son and applied by the Holy Spirit. His triune nature is also absolutely foundational to THE Christian epistemology of which I, with apparent, but I pray not actual arrogance am the sole proponent on this site (for now =] ) [quote]Quick Ben wrote:<<< I find the notion that God and Satan are locked in some epic struggle for all our souls, >>>[/quote]The struggle is all Satan’s. My God emerged from the grave in the person of Jesus Christ the triumphant conquering victor over sin, death and the devil having nailed all my sin to His cross, dying for my guilt and then rising again for having no guilt of His own. I am FREE. I will take every breath, walk every step and think every thought as an act of war against the corruption of my flesh which persists until my own resurrection as well as the enemy of my soul who seeks my death (and all other believers) more than ever before. There are no struggles for God. [quote]Quick Ben wrote:<<< and that technicalities and misunderstandings over scripture can tip the scales for a man… well, childish and petty. >>>[/quote]There is such a thing as relative technicalities about which true believers can disagree while embracing each other as true believers. My church is currently working with over 500 other Detroit area churches to the end of seeing the transforming power of the risen Christ glorified in this rotting dying city. We disagree about a lot, but when it comes to the absolutely vital convictions like the singular yet triune nature of God and the personal deity of Jesus and the Holy spirit for instance? Every last one of us agrees. We had a huge prayer walk in downtown Detroit in April where 24 or 25,000 believers at final police estimation all joined hands to see this city changed by His loving grace and power. I doubt if you would have found one person who didn’t believe that outfits like the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were satanic anti Christian deceptions.
I’m talkin churches from the far white sedate suburban Baptists and Presbyterians to the rather lively inner city mostly black churches like mine. All in agreement on the life and death core gospel doctrines. Technicalities don’t damn anybody. Everybody’s born damned. False religions are simply one of Satan’s most successful methods for keeping them that way. [quote]Quick Ben wrote:<<< I don’t mean to offend or pick a fight, just putting that in here in case it comes off that way. [/quote]As I told you. I believe this is the truth. I know what I am without Him friend. I know what He’s brought me through and I know where He’s bringing me to. I know that I am a man fully deserving the fires of hell and as I’ve said many times. Simply being forgiven would have been a million times more than I deserved, but no. I am not merely forgiven. He has made me His son, His Bride and His brother. I say everything I do out of love for Him and my longing to see others have what I have and yes. That is fully consistent with His unalterable sovereign providence by which He has eternally decreed whatsoever comes to pass.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
the same things 200 other people have already wrote to me on this site alone (a bit of hyperbole, but you get the message) no offense. Not to mention I couldn’t possibly count how many others over the last 25 years.
[/quote]If you really care please read the books of Romans, Galatians and Ephesians and then go back to Ezekiel. If not you’re wasting my time and I’ve typed my fingers raw on these exact topics already, but I have all the time in the world for somebody who actually cares what God’s Word says. Lemme know when you’ve read those. I have dozens of times each. You can get through them. Romans especially will make your hair stand on end. Be prepared.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
the same things 200 other people have already wrote to me on this site alone (a bit of hyperbole, but you get the message) no offense. Not to mention I couldn’t possibly count how many others over the last 25 years.
[/quote]If you really care please read the books of Romans, Galatians and Ephesians and then go back to Ezekiel. If not you’re wasting my time and I’ve typed my fingers raw on these exact topics already, but I have all the time in the world for somebody who actually cares what God’s Word says. Lemme know when you’ve read those. I have dozens of times each. You can get through them. Romans especially will make your hair stand on end. Be prepared.
[/quote]
Don’t even bother. I’ve read Romans and it doesn’t mean what you think it means. For every scripture you try to use or twist to support your view, I can find one that contradicts it or places it in a different context; so please don’t waste your energy.
You are so quick to point out that Catholics and most other Christian denominations agree about the triune nature of God so they must be right, and Mormons must be wrong. Well guess what? Catholics and most other Christian denominations believe that man has free will and the ability to choose to accept Jesus Christ, and therefore reject your Calvinist BS. So I guess we must be right and you must be wrong.
I can’t help if the Catholic Church has a monopoly on the truth when it comes to faith and morals. Don’t hate!
Anyway, back to questions.
On Calvinists’s Double Predestination: Catholic Magazines & Religious Articles | Catholic Answers
[quote]super saiyan wrote:<<< So I guess we must be right and you must be wrong.[/quote]Well I guess we’re done then. You can count on being in my prayers.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:<<< So I guess we must be right and you must be wrong.[/quote]Well I guess we’re done then. You can count on being in my prayers.
[/quote]
LOL. And what exactly will you pray for? That I will cross my fingers and hope to be one of God’s elect? What a pointless existence it would be if your religion was true. A man could love God with all of his heart and serve him every day, and yet still be passed over because he was not of the chosen ones.