Why is it that people who claim to be "christian" usually seem to be closed-minded and judgemental (the very opposite of Christ)? I am not trying to insult anyone in particular, I am just saddened because I feel like I am losing my faith... I don't proclaim to know all about God, or have any answers, but why can't people accept the fact that we will NEVER have the answers? I have faith in a higher power/intelligent designer (God) and believe that Jesus, if he in fact existed, was surely one of the most spiritually advanced humans to ever walk the earth. I WANT to believe... but lately it is getting harder and harder--the so called "bible churches" and "non-denominational" churches seem to be the worst at proclaiming their truth as THE truth, and judging other people as unworthy.
I was raised Catholic and after trying a bunch of different denominations, I have come back to the catholic church, as it is the one I feel the most comfortable in, and I have had a great experience with my priest. I was pregnant when he married me and my husband, and he was so kind to us both. Many of my baptist friends think the catholics are evil and pagan and blablabla. I am so tired of hearing it. Why can't we all just get along? I'm starting to think if jesus came back to earth, he wouldn't attend any church at all, he woul probably be more at home sitting in silence with a buddhist monk in nature.
Anyway... does anyone else have this problem? :rolleyes:

Please don't say "usually" :) If "usually" is your experience, then I am truly saddened.

Indeed there are hypocrites aplenty on this earth, but hopefully it's not a person's typical experience of a religious group whose foremost teaching is to love their neighbor.

Aah Rome Sweet Home (Rick ducks :) )

Peace and Blessings to you, rachie.

I get that to. Sometimes I think people take things too literally. Some people are just too pushy with religion. Someone should be tricked, bribed, or forced into any religion, but should go by their own free will. There shouldn't be threats either. As said in the movie "saved" "the bible isnt a weapon" and "if God wanted us all to be the same, then why did he make us so different.?"

Rachie,
I really don't see a question in your rant. Quit worrying about what others think of your faith and follow what Jesus teaches. By the way, who is the Hypocrite? You did a lot of bashing yourself in that rant of yours. Makes me think of that old glass houses adage. Lastly, Church should make you feel a little uncomfortable. If you seek a church that accepts you the way you are (sins and all) are you really being challenged to growing spiritually or have you found a social club? Remember, true Christianity is God centered not self-centered.

All kinds of people experience this. From all faiths and denominations. From all cultures. No one will ever have all the answers, as there are some things we are not privileged to know but we are to trust and have faith. That should not change, no matter the denomination. Someone comes along proclaiming to have the "keys" to all the mysteries? Run the other way.

Yes, there are denominations that claim ot be the only Way. There are non-denominational churches who say that too. They have a perception, an interpretation, a religious belief based on their translation of the Bible. If you feel the Roman Catholic Church is right for you, then be blessed by that. Of course you will hear from people who are not Catholic that the Catholic church is the harlot of hell, that the Pope is the AntiChrist, etc. and so on. That has been going on for centuries. When I was growing up (as a Catholic) we had all sorts of names slung at us. It is just people's intolerance and while it is not right, getting back to them in the same manner does not resolve anything.

My question to you is, why do you think Christ was an "IF"? There is documented history, not just from in the Holy Bible but also in Roman writings and other ancient texts. Maybe that is part of your angst. Recognizing that Christ did live, He came so that there would be redemption for all mankind, and He is still working. That cross did not defeat Him.

I do agree with you - if Christ were a physical presence today, He most likely would not attend an established church. He already established His Church and Him coming back would be to gather His fold.

Anyway, I hoped this helped you a little bit. Catholics are not pagans, they don't worship any false god. What they do show is a deep reverence for the Word of God.

Just make sure that everything you believe and accept comes from scripture. Jesus said that many false prophets would go into the world to deceive many. Check out different religions, see what makes sense to you and get them to show you from the scriptures what they expect you to believe.
Catholicism cannot be Christian... it originated with pagan Rome, and the Pope states that he is Gods representative on the eart... where does it say THAT in scripture??
The Bible say "keep testing to see if you are in the faith" Do that... prove it to yourself and you will be satisfied.

Just make sure that everything you belive and accept comes from scripture. jesus said that many false prophets would go into the world to deceive many. Check out different religions, see what makes sense to you and get them to show you from the scriptures what they expect you to believe.
Catholicism cannot be Christian...it originated with pagan Rome, and the Pope states that he is Gods representative on the eart.....where does it say THAT in scripture???
The Bible say "keep testing to see if you are in the faith" Do that...prove it to yourself and you will be satisfied.

Ma'am, you are forgetting that there was no Scripture for the first 300 years of Christianity.

Where does it say in Scripture that "everything you believe should come from scripture? (http://www.catholictruths.com/articles/solascriptura.html)"

... but sorry, I digress from the original post :o

Christianity itself originated from Pagan beliefs... and if you ask me the bible or scripture was not meant to be taken literally. It is a group of stories written by human men. These human men wrote this things to help simple minded people understand the teachings. You can not take everything written there literally. These human men were influenced by spiritual forces, but they are not the direct words of God. Religion is about Faith, not about memorising and following a book word for word.

That is the KEY alkaline, the bible stories are not words from Gods mouth. And they are not meant to be taken literally! Very good answer. I choose not to get my butt to church because when I go, I get the feeling some of us are being fake for about an hour or two then, BAM we get in our cars and leave and until next Sunday we just keep doing what we were doing before. NOT ALL, but some of us. I know I am guilty of it. I used to love going to church until I realized one thing, GOD is with me where ever I go and I will try my hardest to be better than yesterday and ask forgiveness when I think it is necessary. I have talks with God all day long, whether in a full sit down and bow my head prayer or just between the dishes and walking outside to call the kids in for dinner, I am always talking to him. Also, I find myself being a Christian but only in the fact that I would go to a non-denominational church if I were to go again. It is so hard to believe in something you cannot see but, look deep inside and go from there. That doesn't mean that it will be God you find either.

It seems that everyone makes their faith up as it goes along. The Jews were held to hndreds of laws, recorded for reference and now available as the Hebrew scriptures. Jesus kept those laws and his apostles recoded other books through divine inspiration. The Bible is referred to as Gods Word is it not?
I prefer to see things from Gods point of view rather than mans, but we all have choices to make in this area.

And that is your choice, but to tell Rachie that the only right thing to do is what scripture says is proving the very problem that she posted about. People of religion need to realize that other people may think different from them, and that is their choice. It is not our duty to tell others they are wrong because they don't see things the same as us.

It is not our duty to tell others they are wrong because they don't see things the same as us.

I agree 100%

Just make sure that everything you belive and accept comes from scripture..

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood you, I just didn't get that idea from this comment. Many religions do not believe in scripture.

Yup, we should not be allowed to go knocking on doors and pushing ourselves into home to tell them they are going to HELL if they don't get on the band wagon. Agreed! I get confused with God just as anyone does that believes in him. I am touched with miracle stories and think he has something to do with them! And I am hurt at the evil things that I think the Devil has to do with. I say as you grow, you "see" more, whether it be what I see or what someone else sees. Let it be your own and don't get pushed around.

Yup, we should not be allowed to go knocking on doors and pushing ourselves into home to tell them they are going to HELL if they don't get on the band wagon.

Who does that??

Some historical background for you, Rachie.

History and Time Line of the Life of Jesus Jesus Central jesuscentral.com (http://www.jesuscentral.com/ji/jesus-history.php)
Looking at Evidence for Jesus in History (http://www.request.org.uk/main/history/jesus/Jesus00.htm)
History of JESUS CHRIST (http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac34)
Jesus - History or Myth? (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1517078.htm)

There are a few religions who do go around to peoples homes. The Jehovahs witnesses and the Mormons to name a few... at least that is who has come to my door before.

Yup, me too and if it gets extremely annoying. I know it was besides the point but I had to say it!

No way do the Witnesses say anyone is going to hell... do the Mormons?? I haven't heard that.

Who created Hell??

Hell was created by God. This excerpt from, "The Reality of Hell" by Donald Perkins:
The Reality of Hell (http://www.sxws.com/charis/reality_of_Hell.htm)

"The Word of God declared that this place was prepared for Satan and his angels (Matthew 25:41). "

"And the Devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever." - Revelation 20:10, Isaiah 14:9-19

God created Hell to destroy the rebellion of Satan and to put an end to sin. In the beginning, Hell was not created for man, but when man first sinned in the Garden of Eden, God had to accommodate man's fall. Hell was created to rid God's creation, (meaning God's heavens and the perfect earth,) of sin. "

Of course, this means you believe the Bible is the Word of God. If you do not believe that, then why believe in Hell or Heaven?

Other sources:
Biblehelp.org (http://www.biblehelp.org/whyhell.htm)
Why did God create hell? - Catholic Answers Forums (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=151384) - interesting explanation of how Hell came about from a Catholic Apologist.

One more post. Just in case God is real: I do not want to go to HELL! So with that said, be the best person you can be and love each other for who we are.

Oh I have been told by quite a few mormons, that there is a place for us non-believers... right after they gave me their book every day for a month straight...

I was a christian for 18 years. I stopped going to church a few years ago, I do not agree with everything that is in the bible and I don't want to seen with people who are haters, rasists, and all together rude people. Like most christians I know are. In my opinion, they can be one-sided and VERY judgemental. Hardly any are really like Jesus. Why be part of that? Why call yourself a child of god when all you are is a child of the world? Anyway, I will not be part of such a rude religion. I think christians can be hypocrites and I don't wish to be like that. If you are seeing all these BAD sides to the religion then in my opinion you shouldn't be a christian. Why be part of something that clearly isn't right? It's not the master religion, its not the only way and it sure as heck isn't loving.

Here are url's to questions I asked of this nature/ish maybe it will help or w/e

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-religion/why-do-ppl-think-they-tolerant-when-theyre-not-72427.html

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-religion/why-do-ppl-assume-wicca-satanic-im-going-hell-54238.html

Oh I have been told by quite a few mormons, that there is a place for us non-believers...right after they gave me their book every day for a month straight...

And THIS post just happens to be your 666th post! Haha


Anyway, one cannot take the scripture word for word. It has been manipulated since origin by people who were not believers.

(Wheres NeedKarma when you need him... I always love that post from Leviticus that he throws in at times like these lol)

The ignorant are not the majority... thank God. But yes, they are aplenty! All in all, it does not matter what they think or how they feel. It does not matter what "religion" you call yourself. All that matters is believing.

At the risk of sounding like I'm sucking up I like the type of religious person that Rickj is: he is quite devout, never tries to sway you one way or another (unless specifically asked) and is fair to all.

For DrJizzle:

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Politics (Letter to Dr. Laura) (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp)

If anyone finds any part particularly juicy feel free to comment. :D

Catholicism cannot be Christian...it originated with pagan Rome, and the Pope states that he is Gods representative on the eart.....where does it say THAT in scripture???

Christianity did not originate from pagan beliefs. What Christianity did to gain acceptance was to take pagan practices and say OK, you can still practice this but it now means this … instead. Christmas is the perfect example of this. It’s not to say that our Lord and Savior was born on December 25th, it’s just the day we choose to celebrate it.

The Catholics believe that Christ made Peter the first Pope. See Mathew 16:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&verse=18&version=31&context=verse). I'm not Catholic although I did attend a Catholic church for several years because my wife is/was Catholic. (We've since joined the Methodist church and are very happy there) I don't believe in many of their practices such as praying to saints and the necessity of having a priest hear your confessions, however I'm not going to fault someone who is faithful to those practices. If that's what draws you in spiritually then I think it's great. Take comfort in your faith!

As for Christians being hypocrites, every single Christian (myself included) is a hypocrite. We have ALL done something at one time or another that is contrary to what we believe in. That dosn't’t make us bad….just human. The great thing is our salvation was paid for and our sins washed clean by the blood of Jesus Christ.

The great thing is our salvation was paid for and our sins washed clean by the blood of Jesus Christ.


Most christians use that line too losely. That can be taken like you mean your superior or that your bragging. Not saying you mean that, but it is the one thing that bugs me most. ''I've been washed with the blood of the lamb, praise the lord amen''... shoot me now . One of many reasons I am against most christians.

Rayne, you seem to be doing exactly what you hate the most.

You claim that Christians condemn you and those who do not think the way they do when you are condemning them for not thinking the way you do.

That is actually what they believe and what the Bible teaches. I don't see it as them thinking they are superior anymore than your post says that about you.

Most christians use that line too losely. That can be taken like you mean your superior or that your bragging. Not saying you mean that, but it is the one thing that bugs me most. ''I've been washed with the blood of the lamb, praise the lord amen''....shoot me now . One of many reasons i am agaisnt most christians.
I think there are those out there who see that as an excuse to do what they want but I think the majority of us see it as a comfort. The closer I get to God the more I realize what a pathetic sinner I am. I'm not going to wallow in it instead I try to accept His forgiveness and try to lead a better life. (It's not easy) To take God's forgiveness and go out and do the same bad things over again is a slap in the face to Christ. God's love and patience is infinite but his grace is not a place to wipe your feet.

Thanks everyone for the replies... its good to discuss things like this... sorry if I opened a can of worms, I just have many questions.

You shouldn't apologize, it is a great topic and since everyone thinks a little differently, it is an exciting one! Thanks for bringing it up!

http://www.pacifichighlander.postkiwi.com/images/Can-of-worms.jpg
We like worms! :p :p

I didn't mean I was a non-believer in the sense that I'm not religious, I meant that the Mormons that visited me called me a non-believer because I wasn't mormon. I have my own religious views, although they don't quite fit in any particular religion with the exception of maybe the Unitarian Universalists...

Much of christian beliefs comes from paganism. While some denominations are unitarian, strict monotheists similar to judaism or islam, many denominations are trinitarian, which comes from the pagan influence.

Hey Karma, I read the Dr. Laura thing. I have to say that aside from the "letter", I like some of Dr. Lauras comments on keeping a family together, whenever possible. I think she is definitely a hypocrite. I find her offensive in some aspects and enlightening in others. I know it takes a lot to admit you agree with Dr. Laura about anything, but really she does have some good points, like giving a husband what he needs, and keeping family together. What do you think? Should we start another thread on Dr. Laura alone?

Haha Dr. Laura was tossed off my local station long ago but I do remember the feeling she gave me: One minute I'd want to drive to wherever she is and wring her neck for being such a know-it-all-annoying-loudmouthed-swollen-headed-female-dog - and the next minute wishing she'd come over to my house and give me some advice on a thing or three :p :p

Yes, my husband would invite her over more than me though, he likes the fact that she thinks I should "give it up" every night. But I am getting off course once again. I think she talks like a pig when she degrades people for who they are even if she is giving it to them the way it really is. I think she can show more compassion than that while doing it. She is definitely not perfect. Nor am I...

She's just trying to stir up some healthy debate... get people thinking, and learn others opinions.. nothing wrong with that...

I've never said everyone is a hypocrite. Only those I know and thus the basis of my information. I try and do set examples for people. I'm always giving as good as advice as I can. No one was pointing out flaws in others, merely saying what they think about what they see in others. No one's telling people straight up they are wrong or whatever. So I'm not sure what your getting at with your post. Doesn't make sense to me. Sorry :-) But if your trying to imply that I should care about my life and myself more so then pointing out others weaknesses... your wrong because that's not what I am doing at all.

why is it that people who claim to be "christian" usually seem to be closed-minded and judgemental (the very opposite of Christ)? i am not trying to insult anyone in particular, i am just saddened because i feel like i am losing my faith....i dont proclaim to know all about God, or have any answers, but why can't people accept the fact that we will NEVER have the answers? i have faith in a higher power/intelligent designer (God) and believe that Jesus, if he in fact existed, was surely one of the most spiritually advanced humans to ever walk the earth. i WANT to believe...but lately it is getting harder and harder--the so called "bible churches" and "non-denominational" churches seem to be the worst at proclaiming their truth as THE truth, and judging other people as unworthy.
i was raised Catholic and after trying a bunch of different denominations, i have come back to the catholic church, as it is the one i feel the most comfortable in, and i have had a great experience with my priest. i was pregnant when he married me and my husband, and he was so kind to us both. many of my baptist friends think the catholics are evil and pagan and blablabla. i am so tired of hearing it. why can't we all just get along? im starting to think if jesus came back to earth, he wouldnt attend any church at all, he woul probably be more at home sitting in silence with a buddhist monk in nature.
anyways....does anyone else have this problem??:rolleyes:
It's like that all over and with all things.

The basic premise of the Christian religion is that the Son of GOD walked the earth for 33 years and then was killed on the cross. He arose after three days and told his followers to spread the news. That is what they are trying to do still. That is what they were told to do by their GOD. You don't have to listen. If someone bugs you about it, tell them to bug off. If it comes over your radio or TV, either change the station or just turn it off. If they come beating down your door, you can call the police and if they actually break into your house, you have a right to defend yourself. If you see two or three of the perpetrators standing on the corner, just cross the street. It really is easy to avoid.

magprob, I agree, avoid conflict if you can! I am mostly too polite to other people to tell them to be quiet or to just plain ole walk away. If I would avoid it in the first place it would be easier!

magprob, I agree, avoid conflict if you can! I am mostly too polite to other people to tell them to be quiet or to just plain ole walk away. If I would avoid it in the first place it would be easier!

Wouldn't it be much more polite to tell them you are not interested and simply walk away. Then, you are not wasting their time nor yours. Where I live, I tell Mormon missionaries that all the time. It doesn't seem to upset them, they should be used to it. :p

Yes, to an extent. Sometimes I really want to tell someone something and even though they didn't want to hear it, they liked it when I was through. BUT, I will take your advice and tell them that I don't want to waste their time. Thanks for that!

What events and figures have shaped the development of Islam in the United States?

I treat them the same as telemarkaters, I do want to waste their time.

what events and figures have shaped the development of Islam in the United States?None that I can think of... or you can start a new thread.

My husband will sit there and have a full on conversation with the telemarketers on the phone and I get so mad at him because he gets them all excited and then says sorry not interested! I just say that at the beginning and hang up before they can say another word.

There is a school of thought that believes that if you waste their time it makes that marketing method economically not viable. I just want to do my part. :)

Yes, I guess so!

My husband likes to speak to them in aborginal tongue... one time they put a spanish interpretor on for him... lol...

why is it that people who claim to be "christian" usually seem to be closed-minded and judgemental (the very opposite of Christ)? i am not trying to insult anyone in particular, i am just saddened because i feel like i am losing my faith....i dont proclaim to know all about God, or have any answers, but why can't people accept the fact that we will NEVER have the answers? i have faith in a higher power/intelligent designer (God) and believe that Jesus, if he in fact existed, was surely one of the most spiritually advanced humans to ever walk the earth. i WANT to believe...but lately it is getting harder and harder--the so called "bible churches" and "non-denominational" churches seem to be the worst at proclaiming their truth as THE truth, and judging other people as unworthy.
i was raised Catholic and after trying a bunch of different denominations, i have come back to the catholic church, as it is the one i feel the most comfortable in, and i have had a great experience with my priest. i was pregnant when he married me and my husband, and he was so kind to us both. many of my baptist friends think the catholics are evil and pagan and blablabla. i am so tired of hearing it. why can't we all just get along? im starting to think if jesus came back to earth, he wouldnt attend any church at all, he woul probably be more at home sitting in silence with a buddhist monk in nature.
anyways....does anyone else have this problem??:rolleyes:
It doesn't sound like you are losing your faith in "God".

It sounds like you are losing your faith in people.

Believe me there are many more good people in the world than not.

Just keep doing your best - and sometimes the best you can do for people is pray for them, whether you agree with them, disagree, like them or dislike them.

God Bless you.

Helen

[QUOTE=rachie]1)"why is it that people who claim to be "christian" usually seem to be closed-minded and judgemental (the very opposite of Christ)?
2)"why can't people accept the fact that we will NEVER have the answers?"
3)"and believe that Jesus, if he in fact existed,"
4)"judging other people as unworthy."
5)"many of my baptist friends think the catholics are evil and pagan and blablabla."
6)"if jesus came back to earth, he wouldn't attend any church at all"
QUOTE]

1) Christians and non-Christians alike are human and prone to imperfection. I would venture to guess that you might even fall into that category. Your post sounded pretty judgmental from what I read. There's an old saying that goes, "preach the gospel, with words if necessary." Be the kind of person that you think others should be and you become an example.
2) On the contrary, we have the answers and they are in the Bible. It's a matter of trusting or not trusting what you read.
3) That statement speaks volumes about your current level of faith. Remove the "if" and you will be on the right track. He not only "existed" He exists!
4) The Bible proclaims that we are all unworthy. None of us is good, no not one. Evil comes forth from our heart continually (Psalms 14:3). We were all born with sin nature. That's why Christ came, taught, and died on the cross for you and me. He took on the sins of the world so that we might have everlasting life.
5) All Catholics are sinners as are all Baptists. Many of the teachings of the Catholic church are contrary to the teachings of God's Word as found in the Bible. Part of the formation of the Roman Catholic church came as a result of Constantine's blending of pagan traditions and some of the teachings of Christ. There is a certain level of idolatry within the Catholic traditions.
6) I tend to agree that Christ would probably not attend most of the denominational, mainstream churches in our land and in the world. That's why He would be as hated today as He was while He walked the earth some 2000 years ago. There's nothing new under the sun.

Ma'am, you are forgetting that there was no Scripture for the first 300 years of Christianity.

Huh? Christ and the Apostles quoted the Scriptures many times.

Exodus 24:12 "... commandments which I have written... "
1 Kings 2:3 "... as it is written in the Law of Moses... "
Matthew 2:5 "... thus it is written by the prophet."
Romans 1:17 "... as it is written, The just shall live by... "

Were Christ and the Apostles just joshin' when they were talking about that "written" stuff? Since I assume that you would agree that Christ was a Christian as were His Apostles, I guess we would have to agree that there really were Scriptures around for the first 300 years.

Where does it say in Scripture that "everything you believe should come from scripture"


Revelation 22:18, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19, And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Proverbs 30:5,6 "Every word of GOD is pure: His is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him, Add thou not unto His words, Lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

Galatians 1:8, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Of course, this doesn't mean that you can't believe that pasta is better than rice or that pine trees smell better than lemons. But when it comes to a man's soul and the subject of Christianity, it's best not to venture into the muddy waters of non-Scriptural conjecture or man's traditions.

what events and figures have shaped the development of Islam in the United States?

Modern Christianity has lost its savor. The mainstream church is a bit namby pamby. Just accept everyone and everything just the way it is and turn the other cheek and don't judge and let's just be as un-Christlike as we can be, generally speaking. I mean, who has the courage to go from town to town preaching the Word of God like Jesus Christ did? Who has the courage to flip the money changers' tables over and whip them for buying and selling in the temple? The reason Islam flourishes in the United States is twofold: 1) The Christian community is cowering in a corner somewhere and won't do a single thing to stop it and 2) the Islam community is not afraid to assert their beliefs whether the rest of the world likes it or not. They stand for something while we no longer stand up for anything. We sit in our comfortable pews on Sunday (if you're a 1st day Sabbath keeper) or Saturday (if you are a 7th day Sabbath keeper) then go home and play video games or watch wrestling. Anyway, your question really didn't have anything to do with this thread. You should start a different thread if you want to discuss a different topic. No worries though.

My husband will sit there and have a full on conversation with the telemarketers on the phone and I get so mad at him because he gets them all excited and then says sorry not interested!! I just say that at the beginning and hang up before they can say another word.

I just let my fax machine pick up the phone. Just a tad bit off topic though. Not the end of the world.

Up until I was around 9 or so I went to a penecostal church. No pants, no t.v. no music other than religious... etc every body but them was going to hell including the snake handlers penecostal. Then after that I went to bapist... I never really heard them talk about anyone other than non believers going to hell, of course I couldn't believe in them after all I was brought up to believe they were going to hell. At around 15 I gave up on church. When I moved to Ohio jevoah's witness introduced themselves to me I studied with them for awhile.. but couldn't get the grasp of the no blood rule but OK for organ transplant.. also that only a certain # of people were going to heaven. I gave up on that. I thought about mormon's, couldn't get the hang of it. I've explored wicca's etc. But the one religon I seem to like if I was ever going to join a sect would be Bahai seems like it is for the good of every one and no one goes to hell. Just to mention this I have a lady that lives next to me judging by her happiness catholic religon has something going on. She is the most happiest , elegant , neighborly lady that I have ever met and she never try's to force her religon on anyone. How refreshing... I truly believe that she will be in a grand place someday. So I shy away from religon and just try to take care of the earth and the things and people on it the best that I know how.:)peace

why is it that people who claim to be "christian" usually seem to be closed-minded and judgemental (the very opposite of Christ)? i am not trying to insult anyone in particular, i am just saddened because i feel like i am losing my faith....i dont proclaim to know all about God, or have any answers, but why can't people accept the fact that we will NEVER have the answers? i have faith in a higher power/intelligent designer (God) and believe that Jesus, if he in fact existed, was surely one of the most spiritually advanced humans to ever walk the earth. i WANT to believe...but lately it is getting harder and harder--the so called "bible churches" and "non-denominational" churches seem to be the worst at proclaiming their truth as THE truth, and judging other people as unworthy.
i was raised Catholic and after trying a bunch of different denominations, i have come back to the catholic church, as it is the one i feel the most comfortable in, and i have had a great experience with my priest. i was pregnant when he married me and my husband, and he was so kind to us both. many of my baptist friends think the catholics are evil and pagan and blablabla. i am so tired of hearing it. why can't we all just get along? im starting to think if jesus came back to earth, he wouldnt attend any church at all, he woul probably be more at home sitting in silence with a buddhist monk in nature.
anyways....does anyone else have this problem??:rolleyes:
I did not read any of the other posts, but I will say that I too have this problem.

I do not associate myself with any specific religion because I do not really think we can know which religion is correct. There may be aspects of each religion which are correct and aspects which are incorrect. And since religion is based off faith we cannot know for a fact what religion is "correct." So I believe that each religion (and each scientific theory) is right in some way (meaning I am open minded).

I am always questioning religion and beliefs held by myself and by others. Something that I do accept whole-heartedly is the evolution theory because there are scientific facts (tons of evidence) which supports it. I think that you can believe in a God or gods (whichever you prefer) AND the evolution theory at the same time. It bothers me when people automatically dismiss evolution and tell me that they believe the Bible is literal. If the Bible was literal, the Earth would only be a few thousand years old (instead of the science proposed millions of years). I am not dismissing the Bible. What I am saying is that the Bible is (to me) a metaphor not a history book (at least with the book of genesis, especially the creation story),

But the one religon I seem to like if I was ever going to join a sect would be Bahai seems like it is for the good of every one and no one goes to hell. Just to mention this I have a lady that lives next to me judging by her happiness catholic religon has something going on. she is the most happiest , elegant , neighborly lady that I have ever met and she never try's to force her religon on anyone. How refreshing...I truly believe that she will be in a grand place someday.

So instead of adjusting to the Word of God, you're looking for some sort of religion that will adjust to you. A religion of no rules or higher calling. A religion that will not require any work or self-adjustment on your part. No right, no wrong, no nothing. Heck, why go to any church if that's what you're looking for? You can get that at your local pub.

So because the lady next door is happy, she's going to a grand place? I'm happy (though not very elegant). I laugh a lot. But I'm Christian, not Catholic. Does that mean that I get to go to a grand place too?

[QUOTE=stargazer10] I do not associate myself with any specific religion because I do not really think we can know which religion is correct. There may be aspects of each religion which are correct and aspects which are incorrect. And since religion is based off faith we cannot know for a fact what religion is "correct." So I believe that each religion (and each scientific theory) is right in some way (meaning I am open minded).
I do accept whole-heartedly is the evolution theory because there are scientific facts (tons of evidence) which supports it. QUOTE]

You could have saved yourself a lot of time if you had simply said, "I don't have a clue and I'm a bit lost right now." We would have understood and not thought any less of you. Your basic premise is that everybody is right and nobody is wrong (that is unless you are a Christian then you must be wrong because your beliefs don't jive with mine).

Your "tons" of scientific evidence that support evolution are eroding at a rapid pace. Modern science is discovering facts that are continuing to threaten the entire theory of evolution. Have you ever heard of Michael Behe? Don't worry, he's not a Christian, he's just a biochemist that wrote the book "Darwin's Black Box." Have you ever heard of his discovery known as "irreducible complexity?" Probably not, the news media keeps these kinds of things under wrap. Nonetheless, there's enough evidence in this one little book written by this one little scientist to blow the theory of evolution out of the water.

Modern Christianity has lost its savor. The mainstream church is a bit namby pamby. Just accept everyone and everything just the way it is and turn the other cheek and don't judge and let's just be as un-Christlike as we can be, generally speaking. I mean, who has the courage to go from town to town preaching the Word of God like Jesus Christ did? Who has the courage to flip the money changers' tables over and whip them for buying and selling in the temple? The reason Islam flourishes in the United States is twofold: 1) The Christian community is cowering in a corner somewhere and won't do a single thing to stop it and 2) the Islam community is not afraid to assert their beliefs whether the rest of the world likes it or not. They stand for something while we no longer stand up for anything. We sit in our comfortable pews on Sunday (if you're a 1st day Sabbath keeper) or Saturday (if you are a 7th day Sabbath keeper) then go home and play video games or watch wrestling. Anyway, your question really didn't have anything to do with this thread. You should start a different thread if you want to discuss a different topic. No worries though.

Yes, if you stand on a table and start preaching on the curb, you are a "FREAK" although, everyone would at least stop and listen. (we all like to watch freaks) That does take a lot of courage. I am guilty of wanting to go to a church where it is more easy going and I can get away with "breaking the rules", ohhhhh I wish I could be more of a "tight a--"! I wish we all would stop "cowering" as you put it... And last, I think if you stand for something, good morals and respect for others is very important, on the other hand babying people is different than respecting them... We are all wanting to be babied and we don't want to take responsibility for our actions...
I always thought that the reason for someone not believing in GOD is because they didn't want to take that kind of responsibility! I don't believe that about all non believers but it is definitely the case in some people I have met! Hugs to all of you. Even though this thread had gone off course, I still love the whole conversation!

The point I was trying to make (and it may not have come across exactly as I had intended) is that Jesus Christ wasn't a softie Who just accepted everyone as they are. His verbage was straight forward and clear. With His words, He paved a very narrow path for entry into the Kindgom of God. Phrases like "many are called but few are chosen" or "except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" or "The Son of man shall send forth His angels...and gather out of His kingdom all things that offend...and cast them into the furnace of fire..." Not kind words at all but rather direct and to the point.

I am pretty sure we are on the same page, but with different vocabularies, as I cannot quote from the bible. I think you are right.

Action jackson - agree with all your posts

I think people confuse " trying to be good " with righteousness. Rom 3:23, Eph 2: 8-10,
And forget that grace bears "fruit." [ last half of James 2 ]


Rachie :

It is not about religion / denomination and their traditions , but about Jesus / God, read and study His word [ Bible ] and ask questions.




John 3:16 - For God so loved the WORLD that He...

World I think that is as inclusive as you can get, we each have a choice.





Grac and Peace

why can't people accept the fact that we will NEVER have the answers?

Good question, and I can certainly understand your frustration. As a member of one of those "bible churches" and one that spent a fair amount of time thinking we had all the answers, I can say without a doubt we don't, and the church needs to spend more time and effort on the Great Commission and less on distinctions and division. Most of what separates orthodox Christian denominations isn't anything that really matters a whole lot in the scheme of things in my book, so what's the point?

That said I think it's human nature to want to feel superior to someone else, and it seems that a lot of times when people "get Jesus" (or Allah or whatever) they think they've found their key to superiority, instead of growing, maturing, embracing the principles (basically, love) and spreading that around.

On the other hand I believe we would be remiss if we didn't defend our core beliefs, such as faith, salvation by grace, the divinity of Jesus, etc. but that doesn't mean we should hammer everyone for not believing exactly as we do. I can say I have issues with certain aspects of Catholicism, but I'm sure Catholics have issues with Baptists as well, but I find no reason to judge a Catholic's (or anyone else for that matter) relationship with God - that's between you and God - and I believe we worship the same God. :)

I think it's human nature to want to feel superior to someone else, and it seems that a lot of times when people "get Jesus" (or Allah or whatever) they think they've found their key to superiority, instead of growing, maturing, embracing the principles (basically, love) and spreading that around.
Sadly, I'm afraid you're right about this. The desire to be special, superior, chosen, or otherwise different and better than others explains a whole lot of human behavior, attitudes and beliefs, and not just in matters of religion.

I believe that what we do and say to someone will affect them big time as well as our own selves. There is a huge desire to feel better and I wish I could say I don't have that desire. Now if we are talking about me having a bigger diamond ring than someone else, then I can see what you are saying. But what if I am just wanting to better myself in every way, not just by having a bigger ring, but by making myself who I really want to be. Volunteering, taking time to listen to my kids or doing a better job cleaning my house?? Does that mean I am not good? No, it just means that we all want to be better, not necessarily superior. I don't even know if that made sense but I tried.

I find no reason to judge a Catholic's (or anyone else for that matter) relationship with God - that's between you and God - and I believe we worship the same God. :)

Having done a great deal of study of the tenets of the Catholic church, I've come to the conclusion that it primarily idolatrous. Having said that, I don't necessarily believe that all Catholics are bad or evil. Only God knows their hearts and He, not I, is the ultimate Judge. As for whether the God of the Roman Catholic institution is the same as the God of the Christian Church, I will have the Scriptures speak:

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the SIMPLICITY (emphasis mine) that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which he have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." II Corinthians 11:4

Roman Catholicism, in my opinion, has weaved a very complicated web within the religion of Christianity. I feel badly for those who have been deceived.

I feel badly for those who have been deceived.As do I.

Having done a great deal of study of the tenets of the Catholic church, I've come to the conclusion that it primarily idolatrous. Having said that, I don't necessarily believe that all Catholics are bad or evil. Only God knows their hearts and He, not I, is the ultimate Judge. As for whether the God of the Roman Catholic institution is the same as the God of the Christian Church, I will have the Scriptures speak:

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the SIMPLICITY (emphasis mine) that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which he have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." II Corinthians 11:4

Roman Catholicism, in my opinion, has weaved a very complicated web within the religion of Christianity. I feel badly for those who have been deceived.

This is simply about a point of view. I could easily say the same about the non-Catholic Christians.

My whole family was Catholic, I for some reason was never comfortable with the whole naming my religion thing! Even when I was younger. What I was comfortable with was knowing in my own heart there was a higher power somewhere out there, and I choose to call it God. Him God. I have yet to read the whole bible, I have yet to take in some of lives important lessons. But I am at ease to know that I will be getting help along the way. Thankful too. Also this whole thing is about hippocrates , so I guess we all better start joining this post, right?

But what if I am just wanting to better myself in every way, not just by having a bigger ring, but by making myself who I really want to be.
The problem isn't with wanting to be better than we are, it's with wanting to be better than someone else. I don't have a problem with competition per se, but it's hard not to derive our sense of self-worth from where we place in the race and to look down on those who are behind us.

You're on a roll with some pretty good answers thus far. Allow me to toss in my little tidbit, for whatever it's worth. Bear with me, OK? I promise it's relevant.

Way back when I was an undergrad in college, I was taking a class in social psychology (I think), when an interesting experiment came to my attention. It wasn't a psychological experiment, it was actually in the field of communication or something like that, but quickly, the psychological/sociological ramifications arose. Essentially, the deal was this: there were two groups, each IDENTICAL in their makeup--the same number of whites, asians, blacks, age-groups, etc. The two groups were as identical as possible to each other in all regards, save one: one "team" wore red t-shirts to the experiment and one wore blue. Essentially, they were two identical focus groups or whatever that operated separately to work on a problem or evaluate something, and then came together as one big group to discuss their findings. Well, it wasn't long before the groups--in private--began to make comments such as "the blues won't understand this" or "typical red behavior." Soon, the comments weren't restricted to just the team times, and they began openly slamming each other in the large group meetings. At one point, physical violence erupted between members of the blue team and the red team. Remember, these were originally merely two identical teams working on the same problem. Eventually, what you had was prejudice and hatred based solely on the group that one belonged to.

Starting to sound familiar?

I've used that example in many lectures and sermons I've given on the whole "we're all Christians, why can't we work together" thing, because I can never spell that "ecumen..." word. :o

Within all of us humans, there is a tendency to some degree to want to feel superior to someone else. I don't know why, but I think that fact stands. Like many other things that are chalked off as "human nature," we have to work hard to try and overcome it, and sadly, many people do not want to overcome certain things. Thus, the hypocritical label is slapped on them, fairly or unfairly.

As for me, I tried to go to sleep last night about 11 o'clock. I ended up not sleeping until after 3 am. I had a loooooooong talk with God about my own hypocrisy that I had quite subtly and easily slid into over a period of months.

The truth is that Christians are just as much hypocrites as anyone else. Or so it would seem. Many use God's grace and forgiveness as a shield or excuse for their actions, and I think that is not right. Grace and forgiveness are more akin to a safety net than a shield, we should still strive with all our might to not fall.

If only all the Christian denominations (and yes, that includes my Catholic brethren), would stop and think for just a minute, they would see that there are a thousand more things that unite us than divide us, and typically the "divisions" are tiny issues that have virtually nothing to do with the grace and salvation offered to us by God.

My suggestion? Go to the church of your choice. But remember, you are not there primarily for the other people, or the pastor. You are there to show YOUR devotion and willingness to learn and serve God. That's the nifty thing about the New Covenant: it's personal. It's a one-on-one relationship between you and God via Jesus Christ and his act of salvation. Remember what he said was the "greatest" commandments?

"Love God. Love others."

THAT'S the truth, and the Truth. THAT'S how to please God and show the world that you are His.

All the rest is, as they say, by the way.

DK

"Love God. Love others."

You got it buddy.

My suggestion? Go to the church of your choice. But remember, you are not there primarily for the other people, or the pastor. You are there to show YOUR devotion and willingness to learn and serve God. That's the nifty thing about the New Covenant: it's personal. It's a one-on-one relationship between you and God via Jesus Christ and his act of salvation. Remember what he said was the "greatest" commandments?

"Love God. Love others."

THAT'S the truth, and the Truth. THAT'S how to please God and show the world that you are His.

All the rest is, as they say, by the way.


START::::::::::::::::
I can take that. I totally get what you are saying!

This is simply about a point of view. I could easily say the same about the non-Catholic Christians.

Oh, definitely, there are non-Catholic institutions that are idolatrous as well. And you are right, it is a point of view based on facts and discovery.

The truth is that Christians are just as much hypocrites as anyone else. Or so it would seem. Many use God's grace and forgiveness as a shield or excuse for their actions, and I think that is not right. Grace and forgiveness are more akin to a safety net than a shield, we should still strive with all our might to not fall.

DK

I happen to agree with you. I find myself getting caught up in the name calling and the bickering when it isn't really necessary to do so. I'm far from perfect. I do get defensive when Jesus Christ or young, new Christians are under attack. I don't care when I'm under attack. I come from a family of 8 and we had to learn out to stand up for ourselves at a young age. I am a staunch believer in the Holy Bible. I test everything I hear to the Word of God to see if it is true or false. I believe that God is my Shield and my Buckler and that His Word is sharper than any two edged sword. Debating the Word of God is not a bad or evil thing. Christ stood up to the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes on numerous occasions. He told us to "occupy till He comes." Christians should stop being hypocrites and start being warriors, Christian warriors.

Dearest poppa0777, I actually used that as a quote from kindj! It is perfect, isn't it. But thanks for the feedback anyway, I just wanted it noted that kindj should take credit for that!

This is simply about a point of view. I could easily say the same about the non-Catholic Christians.

Sure. Point of view can be a powerful thing. The eagle in the tree easily sees the rabbit. The rabbit surrounded by thistles and bushes can hardly see at all.

Sure. Point of view can be a powerful thing. The eagle in the tree easily sees the rabbit. The rabbit surrounded by thistles and bushes can hardly see at all.Ah yes, but the cold beer does not know what the peanut sees.

Ah yes, but the cold beer does not know what the peanut sees.

Don't forget the salt and perhaps the lemon.

Rachie

I certainly believe in a higher power but with regards to losing a faith.

I had on occasion taken my disabled neighbour to Church as he had no one to go with, I was often to referred to as 'Georges (next door neighbours) little saint' and God had surely found me and I was surely a good Chrisitan loving her neighbour etc...

That I assisted my neighbour because I wanted to, not in the name of Christianity but because someone needed help and I could give that help.

The majority of the members were very against other denominations and religions and one lady in particular told me that those people (including me) would not reach 'heaven' for believing in the 'wrong' religion, no matter how good they were.

I visited many different churches over the years, supporting people in my voluntary work, I have worked in Africa and have 'helped' the sick and dying, whose faith was unmeasurably strong even in the face of extreme poverty and I saw that religion can be bring people and communitites together and not just create war and fighting.

These people truly believe that their loved ones who have died will be raised to heaven. I am in awe of their belief in their faith, but I do not share their belief, but this does not make me a bad person or does it?

I wonder if Jesus did come back to earth, would this create peace?

Rachie I certainly believe in a higher power but with regards to loosing a faith. I had on occassion taken my disabled neighbour to Church as he had no one to go with, I was often to referred to as 'Georges (next door neighbours) little saint' and God had surely found me and I was surely a good Chrisitan loving her neighbour etc...... The fact of the matter is that I assisted my neighbour because I wanted to, not in the name of Christianity but because someone needed help and I could give that help.
The majority of the members were very against other denominations and religions and one lady in particular told me that those people (including me) would not reach 'heaven' for believing in the 'wrong' religion, no matter how good they were.
I visited many different churches over the years, supporting people in my voluntary work, I have worked in Africa and have 'helped' the sick and dying, whose faith was unmeasurably strong even in the face of extreme poverty and I saw that religion can be bring people and communitites together and not just create war and fighting.
These people truly believe that their loved ones who have died will be raised to heaven. I am in awe of their belief in their faith, but I do not share their belief, but this does not make me a bad person or does it?
I wonder if Jesus did come back to earth, would this create peace?

From a Christian's perspective, the lady who said that people of other religions won't make it to heaven is right considering the fact that Christians believe that the only way to the Kingdom of God is through faith in Jesus Christ.

Secondly, it is commedable that you desire to help others in need. That is a good trait and it certainly beats the alternative which would be to do nothing when you could clearly see that someone needed help. However, from a Christian perspective, works (even very good works) is not enough. Entry into the Kingdom of Heaven is by faith in Jesus Christ.

Thirdly, you spoke of a person's "strong faith." Many people have a strong faith in one thing or the other. Some have tons of faith that their stocks will be worth more tomorrow than they are today. There are some people who have a strong faith in Satan or some other false god. Strong faith won't gain a person entry into the Kingdom unless that faith is in Jesus Christ.

Thanks Action, you made it very clear that you need full faith in Jesus Christ to get to Heaven! I hope I make it, sometimes my faith is not what it should be! Start...

Thanks Action, you made it very clear that you need full faith in Jesus Christ to get to Heaven! I hope I make it, sometimes my faith is not what it should be! Start....

Mine falters from time to time as well. I've gone through some pretty trying times. If you have the desire, you will be fine.

From a Christian's perspective, the lady who said that people of other religions won't make it to heaven is right considering the fact that Christians believe that the only way to the Kingdom of God is through faith in Jesus Christ.

Secondly, it is commedable that you desire to help others in need. That is a good trait and it certainly beats the alternative which would be to do nothing when you could clearly see that someone needed help. However, from a Christian perspective, works (even very good works) is not enough. Entry into the Kingdom of Heaven is by faith in Jesus Christ.

Thirdly, you spoke of a person's "strong faith." Many people have a strong faith in one thing or the other. Some have tons of faith that their stocks will be worth more tomorrow than they are today. There are some people who have a strong faith in Satan or some other false god. Strong faith won't gain a person entry into the Kingdom unless that faith is in Jesus Christ.
AJ-- One question, if you don't mind.

You seem to use the terms "Kingdom of Heaven", "Kingdom of God", and "heaven" interchangeably. You also seem to imply that it is accessible to the saved only after their death. Is the "heaven" inhabited by the saved after their earthly death and resurrection different from the "Kingdom of Heaven" that Jesus proclaimed to be "at hand"? To me, that means it's available and fully accessible right now, in this life, in this body.

AJ-- One question, if you don't mind.

You seem to use the terms "Kingdom of Heaven", "Kingdom of God", and "heaven" interchangeably. You also seem to imply that it is accessible to the saved only after their death. Is the "heaven" inhabited by the saved after their earthly death and resurrection different from the "Kingdom of Heaven" that Jesus proclaimed to be "at hand"? To me, that means it's available and fully accessible right now, in this life, in this body.

In one sense, I believe that Christians living today are part of God's Kingdom. We are His children and He is our God. There is a living relationship between us. However, Christ prayed Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. That shows a differentiation between Heaven and earth.

Read Matthew 13:38-42. It speaks of a future event when Christ will return with His angels, remove all things that offend and Christ will rule. I believe that the earth will be restored to the perfect state that it was in before Adam's fall. Heaven will be on earth. Both dead Christians and those who will be alive upon His return will all be members of the Kingdom of God.

Secondly, it is commedable that you desire to help others in need. That is a good trait and it certainly beats the alternative which would be to do nothing when you could clearly see that someone needed help. However, from a Christian perspective, works (even very good works) is not enough. Entry into the Kingdom of Heaven is by faith in Jesus Christ.

Thirdly, you spoke of a person's "strong faith." Many people have a strong faith in one thing or the other. Some have tons of faith that their stocks will be worth more tomorrow than they are today. There are some people who have a strong faith in Satan or some other false god. Strong faith won't gain a person entry into the Kingdom unless that faith is in Jesus Christ.

I thank you for your answer and I am truly glad that you have your faith, many people at the various different churches I have gone to have prayed and sang and danced to God and have done nothing to help their fellow human beings, they have never helped or seen a dying person who wanted their hand held because they were afraid, and yes they did believe in God but they were still scared. They have never shopped for their neighbour.

People can help other people without religion guiding them, and if it so that I do not reach the so called 'heaven' then so be it, but at least I have lived with the fact that I have 'been there' for people who needed me and were in great need, and I shall die fulfilled.

Most of the people I saw in Africa had a Christian faith, but some did not, they chose other paths but who are we to judge and condemn them.

I wish you well

I thank you for your answer and I am truly glad that you have your faith, many people at the various different churches I have gone to have prayed and sang and danced to God and have done nothing to help their fellow human beings, they have never helped or seen a dying person who wanted their hand held because they were afraid, and yes they did believe in God but they were still scared. They have never shopped for their neighbour.

People can help other people without religion guiding them, and if it so that I do not reach the so called 'heaven' then so be it, but at least I have lived with the fact that I have 'been there' for people who needed me and were in great need, and I shall die fulfilled.

Most of the people I saw in Africa had a Christian faith, but some did not, they chose other paths but who are we to judge and condemn them.

I wish you well

You mat not accept Christ now but things change. You may find yourself a faithful Christian 2 years from now.

If you do seek a relationship with Jesus Christ at some future point I urge you to seek with an open heart and an open mind. Read the Bible and try to learn what it is saying to you. I'm personally disheartened by what so many Christians these days profess that is totally contrary to what the Bible teaches. Even Pastors, Bishops, and Priests teach erroneous things. Try to seek what Moses, and the prophets taught before Christ then learn what Jesus Christ, and the Apostles taught.

You mat not accept Christ now but things change. You may find yourself a faithful Christian 2 years from now.

And you may find yourself a faithful atheist/agnostic 2 years from now. I think the odds are about the same, don't you?

And you may find yourself a faithful atheist/agnostic 2 years from now. I think the odds are about the same, don't you?

One can only hope but all things are in God's hands and He knows His sheep and they hear His voice. If and atheist never hears God's voice then they aren't one of His sheep and are not in need of a Shepherd. All things, then, are as they should be.

AJ,
I agree about not being His sheep. An atheist does not indeed hear God's voice, they follow their own (I assume most don't hear voices in their head).

AJ,
I agree about not being His sheep. An atheist does not indeed hear God's voice, they follow their own (I assume most don't hear voices in their head).

They say that man only uses about 10% of his brain. I suppose those who have the capacity to hear, hear... and those who don't, don't.

People can help other people without religion guiding them, and if it so that I do not reach the so called 'heaven' then so be it, but at least I have lived with the fact that I have 'been there' for people who needed me and were in great need, and I shall die fulfilled.
It's interesting to me that so much of this and other discussions about religion is focused on what is required in order to make it to "heaven" after we die. As though the only point of living this life was to determine where we spend the next one. I prefer to think that this earthly life has great spiritual value in itself, quite apart from the question of what happens afterward. As I learn better how to live this life "in the Spirit", I become less and less concerned about what will happen after I die.

I read every post in this thread and something bothers me. There are coments about mormons saying their way is the only way, christians the same, catholics etc. Can someone finally answer a question for me? When God created Adam and Eve did he supply them with a manual that stated the contents therin were the only materials to be relied on? Did he say that there was proof inside that there was only one religion and name it? I could have sworn that I was taught that 'who ever believeth in me, shall enter my kingdom" there was nothing stating that it was only a catholic, or mormon or Jew or even Pagan. I see the word Pagan used so lightly here. Does anyone here even know what a true Pagan is or what they believe in and please, please do not be the one to state that a Pagan is a heathen or a devil worshiper. The truth is that Pagans do not believe in the devil, they believe in God, and Jesus and a Goddess. I guess so they think of it as mom, dad and child. Not a farfetched idea really and not that wrong. To each his own.

why is it that people who claim to be "christian" usually seem to be closed-minded and judgemental (the very opposite of Christ)? i am not trying to insult anyone in particular, i am just saddened because i feel like i am losing my faith....i dont proclaim to know all about God, or have any answers, but why can't people accept the fact that we will NEVER have the answers? i have faith in a higher power/intelligent designer (God) and believe that Jesus, if he in fact existed, was surely one of the most spiritually advanced humans to ever walk the earth. i WANT to believe...but lately it is getting harder and harder--the so called "bible churches" and "non-denominational" churches seem to be the worst at proclaiming their truth as THE truth, and judging other people as unworthy.
i was raised Catholic and after trying a bunch of different denominations, i have come back to the catholic church, as it is the one i feel the most comfortable in, and i have had a great experience with my priest. i was pregnant when he married me and my husband, and he was so kind to us both. many of my baptist friends think the catholics are evil and pagan and blablabla. i am so tired of hearing it. why can't we all just get along? im starting to think if jesus came back to earth, he wouldnt attend any church at all, he woul probably be more at home sitting in silence with a buddhist monk in nature.
anyways....does anyone else have this problem??:rolleyes:
Hello Rachie,
That God see what is in our heart. He could care less what we say we believe, it is what God himself finds when He examines our heart. The scripture that comes to my mind is found at 2 Timothy 3:1-7

“But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God,
Now Rachie, Notice verse 5:

“5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 For from these arise those men who slyly work their way into households and lead as their captives weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.”

The truth of who we really are God finds in our heart, the seed of motivation. Our faith, love and obedience to God is not found in any building or in any set denomination, but it is found by God in what He see’s deep in our heart.

This skeptical view of religion is understandable. Many religious organizations are mired in political intrigue and moral hypocrisy and are drenched in innocent blood from countless religious wars. While rejecting the religious organizations that are sullied by hypocrisy and deception, some have made the mistake of also rejecting the Bible, which they think condones such practices.

In reality, the Bible condemns hypocrisy and lawlessness. Jesus said to the religious leaders of his day: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men’s bones and of every sort of uncleanness. In that way you also, outwardly indeed, appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”Matthew 23:27, 28.

The Bible encourages Christians to be neutral in all political affairs. Rather than urging believers to kill one another, it directs that they should be willing to die for one another. John 15:12, 13; 18:36; 1 John 3:10-12

Instead of being “intolerant and divisive,” true religion, based on the Bible, is “broadly inclusive.” The apostle Peter said: “God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.”Acts 10:34, 35.

Did you notice that Rachie, God is not partial, but if we have a healthy fear and work righteousness we are acceptable to Him. So don’t worry about those who say this and that, because it is not important, it only matters what
God says and how he see us.

The Bible tells us that humans are created in God’s image. Genesis 1:26, 27 While this does not mean that humans resemble God in a physical way, it does mean that humans have the ability to reflect God’s personality traits, including the capacity for spiritual things, or spirituality.

It is logical to believe that God would also provide us with the means to satisfy our spiritual needs, as well as proper direction by which we can distinguish between what is beneficial and what is harmful to us spiritually. Just as God created our bodies with a superbly designed immune system, which fights disease and helps keep us healthy, he also equipped us with a conscience, or inner voice, which can help us make right decisions and avoid practices that are harmful physically and spiritually. Romans 2:14, 15

As we know, for our immune system to work, it must be nourished properly. Similarly, for our conscience to work, we need to feed it with good spiritual food.
Identifying the kind of food that will keep us spiritually healthy, Jesus said: “Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through God’s mouth.” Matthew 4:4 God’s utterances are recorded in his Word, the Bible, and they are “beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight.” 2 Timothy 3:16 It is up to us to put forth the effort to take in that spiritual nourishment. To the extent that we come to know the Bible and endeavor to apply its principles in our life, to that extent we will benefit spiritually and physically.Isaiah 48:17, 18.

Rachie, this surly takes time to improve our spiritual health by studying the Bible; and time, it seems, is an increasingly rare commodity. But the rewards are worth the effort! Don’t listen to what everyone around you say, but listen to God himself as he speaks to you through His Word, the Bible.

Take care,
Hope12

I have to say that God is my voice. He is my right and wrong! I am pretty sure that my right and wrong are "almost" the same as some of yours. NeedKarma this is not a judgemental post, and I already know that we disagree on something's, I really like you for that! We all learn from each other. Believe me, the more I talk and try and figure things out, the more questions I have about how I have lived my life before I figured it out! I think we should keep it to "each his own", and like Ordinaryguy (really wrong name)is right, we should live this life to the fullest! To every one of you:
I would like you to look at yourself and be who YOU are. There are going to be times where there are hypocrites and haters in your life, who knows at some point that description may fit you, but please try to realize that! We as humans are not perfect. Be careful with your life, it means a great deal now and later! Love, Start

Start,
I know exactly who I am. I try my best not to be a hypocrite, feel free to point out times when I am. What I certainly do not do is condemn others who are not like me.

I am very careful with my life, my children depend on me. :)

I can see that about you. I am just saying it all kind of boils down to that. That's all. I am working hard not to condem people for being different than me. I have yet to perfect it!

I got to thinking about what I just said, and to tell you the truth, I am having a hard time on whether sometimes I am judgemental or if sometimes I just point out the (my) truth then follow it with my feelings. Sometimes my feelings come across as judging but everyone has their own"feelings" about a certain subject right? I mean lets take abortion for instance, I think it is wrong, and I will go on to tell you my feelings about it. I wouldn't sit here and call you names because you had one, I would just say why I think it was wrong. Next what about cheating on your husband or wife, I would hope that people thought this is wrong, but on this site, it seems so backwards to me. In no case would I think cheating was good, some people on here think it is because some good came after it, I disagree... Anyway, just to say I am a talker and when I say how I feel about something it doesn't mean I am sitting here judging anyone, it means we see thing differently! Thanks for letting me go on and on... Now, I will try to see the grey but I am still a very black and white gal... I am working on it!

inthebox agrees: what do you mean "in the spirit?"
To me, living in the Spirit means to cultivate an awareness of and respect for the spiritual dimension of life and consciousness. It also means being humble in accepting that some truths are ineffable and beyond the grasp of the intellectual mind. In interpersonal relationships, it means being compassionate and understanding of the faults and shortcomings of others and myself. Of course, sometimes I forget and fall into the usual habits of the material mind and body and get cranky, critical and judgmental, so it's a work in progress.

"what do you mean "in the spirit?"

It probably depends on a person's religion but from my viewpoint, it's when a person is at a point where he is open to the leading of the Holy Ghost. It's when a person has recognized his sin nature and his weakness and he's standing before God with a repentant spirit and he recognizes his own weakness and his total need for a Saviour. It's when that person turns his live completely and totally over to the Lord Jesus Christ and recognizes that He is the ONLY reason why life even exists.

ActionJackson (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/actionjackson.html) disagrees: A few too many jeers and jabs from the peanut gallery. One liners... no substance. You make that Disagree comment on this post:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/hypocrites-haters-97413-10.html#post459984

What the hell was there to disagree with?? You seriously confuse me!

I guess he is saying you give no explanation? No details? On the other hand, sometimes we can say things with no details!

No details about what? That I know who I am? That I love my kids? That I'm not a hypocrite? That I don't condemn others to a lifetime in hell?

Like I said you don't have to explain that. It is plain and simple! Some people want more. I am fine with what you said.

I guess he is saying you give no explaination? No details? On the other hand, sometimes we can say things with no details!

Sort of. More like, he'll pick out one thing I say, jab at it, but leave no real explanation as to what his disagreement is or why he is jabbing. He is clearly a non-Christian but spends a great deal of time in the Christian discussions distracting others for no apparent reason. No biggy... I've dealt with this type of personality off and on for many years.

No details about what?? That I know who I am? That I love my kids? Taht I'm not a hypocrite? That I don't condemn others to a lifetime in hell?

Okay, you know who you are. You love your kids. You're not a hypocrite? You don't condemn others to a lifetime in hell. Very good.

I don't condem anyone either, only because I don't have the power to do so. I think NeedKarma really likes a good debate or argument, so that is why he does what he does. I am speaking for him and that is NOT cool. So I will leave this between you and him. I like you though Action... If that matters at all.

I don't condem anyone either, only because I don't have the power to do so. I think NeedKarma really likes a good debate or argument, so that is why he does what he does. I am speaking for him and that is NOT cool. So I will leave this between you and him. I like you though Action......If that matters at all.

Thanks. I think NK is more intelligent than the one liners reflect. I don't really have anything against him personally but he does seem to pick me out and jab at me for some reason. If he wants to discuss a specific topic, that's fine with me but if he comes into the Christians rooms just to start trouble, then he IS a hypocrite for being contrary to what or who he claims to be.

Well he picked one with me and jabbed at me and I almost sent him flowers! Action, don't take it personal. If you don't like what someone is saying or doing we are supposed to ignore it and not give any CREDIT for it. Although it may be hard, it is effective!

Well he picked one with me and jabbed at me and I almost sent him flowers! Action, don't take it personal. If you don't like what someone is saying or doing we are supposed to ignore it and not give any CREDIT for it. Although it may be hard, it is effective!

Agreed, some days I just send him some funny retort and move on. I am very quick to forgive and hold no grudges. I have avoided going where he goes but on occasion, today being one, he followed me to where I was and jabbed with a one liner then ran. No big thing. I am here because I enjoy the fellowship and, to be honest, I enjoy some of the disagreements. It forces me to open my Bible and read it. It forces me to think. The battle to find truth helps us all grow if it is truth that we seek.

Isn't it funny how some of these post completely carry on into different thoughts and perspectives on so many other things other than the question in the first place?? It is no wonder there are so many things to talk about, I had no idea that life was this complicated before I started to come on this site... I am not stupid but I never really thought to think about them this deep. I think of things so black and white, but sometimes there is much more to the picture. Anyway, I guess I will let you get back to what you were doing, you guys get on with the conversation and I will try to stay out of it... LOL I need to do more book worming...

You know what, I keep thinking that same thing, (it is black and white) but it seems to me that there is so much grey for these people that post here. I keep second guessing myself for some reason... It is really starting to annoy me!

Can't we all get along and accept each other for what they are with out attacking anyone. The way that I look at it, we are all here for a purpose, we should love and accept each other and treat those around us whether we know them well or not. Treat as we expect to be treated and then when Karma does come swingin by you aren't hit by the force of a mountain.

Nanajo, I agree to a certain extent but if we let everyone be, then we could have serious problems. If we were all kind to each other then we wouldn't have these issues... I am not heading this toward karma or anyone in particular, I am heading it towards all of us. Just wanted to make myself clear. Good night to you good people!

You know what, I keep thinking that same thing, (it is black and white) but it seems to me that there is so much grey for these people that post here. I keep second guessing myself for some reason.....It is really starting to annoy me!

Part of the title to this thread is "haters." Haters of Christ and Christianity will always try to make us stumble or fall. It's their purpose. Even Christ, Himself, was tempted by the devil. He didn't waver and he didn't compromise. Three times He told Satan "it is written..." He always fell back on Scripture when Satan tempted Him. I believe that God loves us enough that He allows us to be tempted. He allows the satans (adversaries) of the world to tempt us just like He allowed Satan to tempt Job way back in the Old Testament. This earth is a testing ground. God wants to see what we are made of and if we have what it takes to stand firm. Black and white.

cant we all get along and accept each other for what they are with out attacking anyone. the way that i look at it, we are all here for a purpose, we should love and accept each other and treat those around us whether we know them well or not. Treat as we expect to be treated and then when Karma does come swingin by you arent hit by the force of a mountain.

"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." Ephesians 6:11. In fact, please read Ephesians 6:10-17 and 18 Paul is issuing a battle cry. We are in a spiritual battle. We don't put on the "armour of God" unless we are going into battle. It's a battle for the souls of men (and women). Chirst told us in Luke 19:13b, "...Occupy till I come." To occupy is to stand ground. Every time we "just accept them for what they are" we just gave up some ground. Christians need to put their hearts, minds, bodies, and souls into their belief in Christ and His Word. Compromising our faith for the sake of peace is not why Christ came. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Matthew 10:34-36

Action,
You sound exactly like the Islamic fundamentalists. Just saying.

Action,
You sound exactly like the Islamic fundamentalists. Just saying.

Not quite... they don't believe that Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. Secondly, the armour and swords that I speak of are of a spiritual nature rather than literal bombs and bullets. Now a group who could be likened to the Islamic fundamentalists were the Russian Bolsheviks. However, they believed in socialism, secular humanism, and evolution as well as bullets and killing. Food for thought.

cant we all get along and accept each other for what they are with out attacking anyone. the way that i look at it, we are all here for a purpose, we should love and accept each other and treat those around us whether we know them well or not. Treat as we expect to be treated and then when Karma does come swingin by you arent hit by the force of a mountain.
I'm with you on this one. I especially like the "inverse formulation" of the golden rule: "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you". But to a person who sees the life of the spirit as an epic war between God and Satan in which angels and humans are soldiers, tolerance is not a virtue, it is capitulation to the Enemy. From that point of view, it's imperative to "do unto others" who don't share your beliefs as you would expect and want to be done to if you were similarly deluded and under the spell of Satan.

Action,
You sound exactly like the Islamic fundamentalists. Just saying.
Yes, the fundamentalist viewpoint is the same, regardless of the content of the belief system. I sometimes refer to it as Onlyism--ONLY one true scripture, ONLY one correct interpretation. All in all a wonderfully clear vision, although one that guarantees a life of perpetual conflict. Ah, well, harmony isn't for everyone. Some people thrive on conflict, and they will choose a religion that gives them that.

I always thought that we all believed in the same GOD but some of us just couldn't realize it. We just fllow different traditions in believing in him. As for me ordinaryguy, this is the most conflict I have ever had (on this site) My family and I step away from drama as fast as we can... It can bring you down fast!

I think you guys are going to keep on going until you just can't anymore and then you are going to find something else to go on. Fine with me if you both are ENJOYING it... See you later. Start

I always thought that we all believed in the same GOD but some of us just couldn't realize it. We just fllow different traditions in believing in him. As for me ordinaryguy, this is the most conflict i have ever had (on this site) My family and I step away from drama as fast as we can......It can bring you down fast!

"For if he cometh and preacheth ANOTHER Jesus, whom we have not preached..."
II Corinthians 11:4
"I am the Lord thy God, Which have brought the out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Exodus 20:2-3

Clearly not everyone's God is the same God. There is the true Jesus and a false "Jesus" according to II Corinthians. Also, God says that there shall be no other "gods" before Him. "Gods" is plural meaning at least more than one. Therefore, not all men believe in the same God.

"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." Ephesians 6:11. In fact, please read Ephesians 6:10-17 and 18 Paul is issuing a battle cry. We are in a spiritual battle. We don't put on the "armour of God" unless we are going into battle. It's a battle for the souls of men (and women). Chirst told us in Luke 19:13b, "...Occupy till I come." To occupy is to stand ground. Every time we "just accept them for what they are" we just gave up some ground. Christians need to put their hearts, minds, bodies, and souls into thier belief in Christ and His Word. Compromising our faith for the sake of peace is not why Christ came. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Matthew 10:34-36


I admit, it is hard when others question my belief system.
I read these passages and think as a Christian, the war and battle, I fight is not so much with non-believers, but WITHIN MYSELF. The Holy Spirit guides and gives fruit, but the devil wants to prevent me from doing so. For example, spiritual pride. I know the truth is in God's word in the bible and I want so much for others to believe also, but it comes out as a "know it all-ism" that just repels non-belivers. The devil has won.
In reading and studying his word, this stuck out.

Proverbs 9:
7 "Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
9 Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still;
teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning.
10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
And knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

AJ, I admire and respect your pasion.
Just my two cents.



Grace and Peace

I admit, it is hard when others question my belief system.
I read these passages and think as a Christian, the war and battle, I fight is not so much with non-believers, but WITHIN MYSELF. The Holy Spirit guides and gives fruit, but the devil wants to prevent me from doing so. For example, spiritual pride. I know the truth is in God's word in the bible and I want so much for others to believe also, but it comes out as a "know it all-ism" that just repels non-belivers. The devil has won.
In reading and studying his word, this stuck out.
Proverbs 9:
7 "Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
9 Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still;
teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning.
10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
AJ, I admire and respect your pasion.
Just my two cents.
Grace and Peace

That verse has a great deal to say to all Christians who frequent this forum. You will know the wise by the way they react to God's truth and you will know the foolish by their ire and wrath and hateful reaction to God's truth. I don't care if I "repel" the non-believers, my hope is to gain the soul of a seeker of truth. Christ said, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

Even Christ was tempted by the devil. When that battle took place, Jesus Christ swung the sword of truth and quoted Scripture. Read Matthew chapter 4 from the beginning to verse 11. Christ repeatedly said "as it is written..." He used the Word of God against Satan and so should we. We all have inner battles. Pray for strength and simply practice improving where you are weak. I have a bad temper but when I look at who I am today compared to who I was 20 years ago, I'm a sweetheart. I used to drink and use drugs a lot and get in bar fights and crash cars and go to jail and steal and hate. I have overcome many of those bad habits over the years thanks to the power of Christ in my life. I have nothing to be ashamed of and I will stand up for the truth whether the non-believers are "offended" by God's Word or not. That's not my problem... it's theirs.

Thanks for the post my friend. Keep up the good work and strong faith.

Jackson
I've read all the way through the posts on this thread and have cheered in places and groaned in others. I saw the post where you mentioned your past and it sounds like you and I have some strong similarities. One in particular that I struggle with constantly is my temper which is a bit peppery (I've been told that I tend to understate a bit also) in fact I just got up into someone's face yesterday (Had to repent and then go back and apologize too... Definitely a work in progress). I think I understand where you come from and probably do not disagree with you on too many points but you said something that causes me to have to add my two cents worth.

You said "I don't care if I repel the non-believers".

The great commission was and is to take the "Good News" to ALL of the world not just the seekers of truth and young Christians. Yes, the Word does tend to offend the non-believer but a few diplomatic words can mean the difference between repelling a non-believer and creating a new truth seeker.

A very wise man once told me in the process of an extremely painful lesson "We must not use the Bible as a club but as a sword... With a great deal of finesse for to win a convert we must first make a friend."

Just a thought for your consideration.

Jackson
I've read all the way through the posts on this thread and have cheered in places and groaned in others. I saw the post where you mentioned your past and it sounds like you and I have some strong similarities. One in particular that I struggle with constantly is my temper which is a bit peppery (I've been told that I tend to understate a bit also) in fact I just got up into someone's face yesterday (Had to repent and then go back and apologize too... Definitely a work in progress). I think I understand where you come from and probably do not disagree with you on too many points but you said something that causes me to have to add my two cents worth. You said "I don't care if I repel the non-believers". The great commission was and is to take the "Good News" to ALL of the world not just the seekers of truth and young Christians. Yes, the Word does tend to offend the non-believer but a few diplomatic words can mean the difference between repelling a non-believer and creating a new truth seeker. A very wise man once told me in the process of an extremely painful lesson "We must not use the Bible as a club but as a sword... With a great deal of finesse for to win a convert we must first make a friend." Just a thought for your consideration.

I do agree and I guess I should qualify my statement. I was answering someone who was concerned that he might sound like a "now-it-all" which might repel a non-believer. My point was your point that we should boldly preach the gospel to everyone with the hope that some might accept the Word. But I have another hope and that is that I hope a seed is planted in the non-believer who is currently "turned off." Each of us have come to Christ in our own way and in our own time. I don't want to send a non-believer into a tail spin of self destruction. However, I'm not going to back down from non-believers because the name "Jesus Christ" offends them or repels them or causes them to think that I am a know-it-all. Can you see where I'm coming from. I believe that Christians, at some point, need to start standing up for the truth again instead of feeling guilty or ashamed for having their belief. You and I know that the mainstream media works diligently to ridicule and to misrepresent what true Christianity is. That constant barrage of negativity does have an affect on Christians and especially those new to the faith.

DrJizzle agrees: Jesus Christ was a Jew... not a Christian

LOL. His name is Jesus "Christ." He did not follow the Pharisaic religion of Judaism but taught a religion that was brand new to the ears of those living in His day. Those who followed Him followed His example and accepted His teachings. By following and accepting Him, they were Christians by default. Christ was the first Christian.

Calika
Do you have a brain? (I'll assume your answer is yes) How do you know that you have a brain? Have you seen it or did some one tell you that you have one? Someone probably told you that you have one because very few have seen their own brains and those were in a picture that they were told that was theirs. The fact is that you BELIEVED some one when they told you that you had a brain.

Well, I have never seen God but I BELIEVE that he exists.

I also BELIEVE that Jesus, the Christ, died on the cross in my place.

I BELIEVE that he rose again on the third day just as it says in the Bible proving the resurrection that is to come.

I BELIEVE that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, written by Holy Men as God inspired them to write.

The Bible tells me that to every man (and woman) is given a measure of Faith and John 3:16 tells me "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." NIV

I have used that measure of Faith

Have you? Or Will you?

It is such a simple program that many can't accept it or else they think that they must make it more difficult than it is.

Narrow minded... Not really but the gate IS narrow and The Way IS straight.

Hyppocrites... Some, but not all.

What events and figures have shaped the development of islam in the united states?

rachie,
I once was one of those who spoke out strongly against the Catholic Church and tried to turn people away from it.
Then I began wondering about my own Protestant faith that taught so much hate seeming to ignore in many cases the love Jesus taught.
So I started studying the Catholic Church's teachings to prove how wrong it was and that the hate of it was justified.
Amazing... The more I learned the more I found how wrong I was and how wrong much of what I had been taught from Sunday school on for 30 years was wrong.
That was over 40 years ago and after sampling several denomination I became a Catholic.
I firmly believe that anyone who really, truly understands the Catholic Church and it's teaching will either become a Catholic or if already one weill never leave it for
Another.
Listening to a denomination that is not Catholic to learn about the Catholic Church and its teaching is like going to a Ford dealer to find the truth about Chrysler cars.
If you do that you ain't going to get it.
It will be twisted, distorted, misrepresented and historically inaccurate, plus in many cases with lost of hate.
Now when I run into those who are as I once was I understand them and try to help them. But to often I find that they only help I can provide is prayer to the Holy Spirit for them for their mind is so firmly closed that I can not open them up.
So I'll just keep studying and learning more about Catholicism as I go through this life and hopefully be able to help those who will listen and are willing to learn.
There's 2000 years of wonderful history about The Church so I still have much yet to learn about it.
I'm 76 years old now and I hope and pray that God will give me more years to love and learn more about His Church.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Quote from Arcura -
"rachie,
I once was one of those who spoke out strongly against the Catholic Church and tried to turn people away from it.
Then I began wondering about my own Protestant faith that taught so much hate seeming to ignore in many cases the love Jesus taught.
So I started studying the Catholic Church's teachings to prove how wrong it was and that the hate of it was justified.
Amazing ....The more I learned the more I found how wrong I was and how wrong much of what I had been taught from Sunday school on for 30 years was wrong."

Fred, Rachie,
The whole problem is summed up where you say that much of what you were taught was wrong and that you were basically taught to hate others for one reason or another. It WAS wrong simply because it is not Biblical. Jesus loved and died for the very men that drove the spikes into his hands and heels and Judas that betrayed him. Any church that teaches anyone that ANYONE should be hated is wrong teaching. The only thing we are told to hate is OUR sin, that we do either in thought word or deed, and the SIN that others commit(sin being any unloving act.) NEVER to hate the sinner. Once again, I believe my signature says it all. The way we treat others is the way we are treating God that created them.

Rachie hasn't posted here since 2008.

Rachie hasn't posted here since 2008.

So?

Thanks for contributing so eloquently Steve.

Thanks for contributing so eloquently Steve.

Then let me add, what's your point?

You, thanks speechlesstx,
Needkarma, my comments were addressed to fred and Rachie, I simply answered her question not checking to see when it was asked. Just because she asked the question long ago, do you know for a fact that she no longer reads the answers posted here? And did you consider that even if she no longer reads the answers here that others aren't helped? Look at how many times this question has been looked at.

ya, thanks speechlesstx,

You're welcome.

ya, thanks speechlesstx,
Needkarma, my comments were addressed to fred and Rachie, I simply answered her question not checking to see when it was asked. Just because she asked the question long ago, do you know for a fact that she no longer reads the answers posted here? And did you consider that even if she no longer reads the answers here that others aren't helped? Look at how many times this question has been looked at.
I'm quite familiar with how internet forums work. Didn't want to to expect a reply, that's why I posted. I'm 99.9% certain that she doesn't visit this site anymore. The question was revived by a poster who posted a irrelevant homework question.

I'm quite familiar with how internet forums work. Didn't want to to expect a reply, that's why I posted. I'm 99.9% certain that she doesn't visit this site anymore. The question was revived by a poster who posted a irrelevant homework question.

If you didn't want a reply you shouldn't have posted. That's how forums work, someone browses the forum, comes across an open thread and feels they have something to add to and so they do. As homesell noted, whether the person that started the thread still visits the forum or not is irrelevant, as is your belief they no longer visit and your opinion that it was "revived by a poster who posted a irrelevant homework question." We have enough moderators already, NK.

Oops, my crappy typing skills are evident again. Meant to type: "I didn't want him (Homesell) to expect a reply". My bad. Just trying to help.

BTW this was the question (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1791805-post131.html) that revived the thread - standard homework question that is irrelevant to the OP's question. No need to apologize.

Oops, my crappy typing skills are evident again. Meant to type: "I didn't want him (Homesell) to expect a reply". My bad. Just trying to help.

BTW this was the question (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1791805-post131.html) that revived the thread - standard homework question that is irrelevant to the OP's question. No need to apologize.

Then perhaps you should start saying what you mean in the first place?

I try but the drinking gets in the way.

I don't post to get replies. That's why I never ask questions. My satisfaction comes from believing that someone reads my answer and says,"hey I never thought about it that way before. Maybe thinking outside the box is good"

I do like that the character in needkarma box moves. That looks pretty cool.

I've made friends with admins here. :)

I've made friends with admins here. :)

Ah, so the admins DO play favorites here? That would explain some things...

Sure they do, we help each other out. That's how the world works.

Your question has been asked by many I assure you.
First be relieved to know, as many of us have asked that question. We are thinking from the human part of things. You already begin to answer your own question. Jesus our saviour is the most advanced man to ever walk the earth. ( No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him ( John1:18) that makes him. Knowing that helped me a bit.
Once again you are right when you say . If Jesus should come back to earth now ,hear the Mythologies built up arounde him , see the creedalisim, denominatinationalism, sacramentalism, carried out in his name He would certianly say, If this is Christianity, I am not a Christian.
We were forewarned of these times as well by the great prophets by the Binal predictions foretelling of the great Apostasy, where men would be lovers of themselves, blasphemers, boasters, disobedient to parents etc. ( I am not saying this is the end of the world).

( Let no man decieve you by any means; for the day shall come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.)

I am not here to Judge anyone or thing. Only to tell you don't feel like you are the only one to ever suffer this question.
However, if any of you or anyone lack wisdom, I do suggest you do as I did. Find a place where you feel comfortable, without distraction
get on your knees and bring your questions upon the Lord Directly. Ask him for guidance, answers, what path is it he wants you to be lead , and that you want to serve HIS WILL first , before your own. If done from the heart, and Faithfully, Your answers will be shown to you.

Remember the Scriptures are our map to our Father, getting to know him as well as coming to love him. The Doctrine written in it is perfect in everyway, only the people are not. This is why we are Human. Put here to be tested, tried in everyway that our Father sees fit.
Don't let them discourage you. God is not one of confusion.

Sure they do, we help each other out. That's how the world works.

Gee, like we didn't know that. The point is I'm sure a number of people wouldn't be too happy to know you get special privileges. The rest of us get this message, "You may not upload animated images."

It's just an animated gif. If you're nice and help them out they may allow it for you. I help with my technical knowledge and experience. Geez, bitter much?

It's just an animated gif. If you're nice and help them out they may allow it for you. I help with my technical knowledge and experience. Geez, bitter much?

Why do you always assume bitterness on my part? I couldn't care less that they allow you to have an animated photo. But, I have been around these forums long enough to know not everyone sees it that way, they expect the site to be free from partiality in the administration. And I think they have a point.

Nah, you care or you wouldn't be dragging this on. If me having an animated avatar makes think this site is impartial then they are correct - it's a private site that is moderated the owners wish it to be moderated. If people aren't comfortable with that they are free to find another forum that matches their views. I mean for chrissakes it's just a website and I didn't even ask for the avatar.

Nah, you care or you wouldn't be dragging this on. If me having an animated avatar makes think this site is impartial then they are correct - it's a private site that is moderated the owners wish it to be moderated. If people aren't comfortable with that they are free to find another forum that matches their views. I mean for chrissakes it's just a website and I didn't even ask for the avatar.

If you knew me you would know I've made the same argument at other sites, that the owners have the right to do as they wish... that doesn't mean others don't have a point about partiality.

There are no "others", just you.

There has been a great deal of foolishness in the past and it has led to judgemental attitudes. The forgivenness of God has not been well understood or preached, too many sins have been treated as unforgivable,and the Church has been unwilling to change and have light shone on some bad attitudes which developed over time. When I speak of these things I speak of all denominations or should that be abominations. What is reasonably certain is the longer you remain in a particular church the greater the possibility you will be hurt by someone in authority.

You have had a good experience with one adherent of the Catholic Church, you may not have been as well received in another place and this is true of all denominations, one pastor will be judgemental, another helpful. All you can do is forgive those who fail to treat you as well as you expected as Jesus would have done and move on.

The Churches we have today are far from the model that Jesus demonstrated, he preached moving from town to town, healed the sick through prayer, raised up desciples to do the same. His cathedral was the great outdoors and he was led by the Spirit so if a Church is described as pagan it is because it has adopted the ways of the world which always seem good to man but may not be the way God operates

There are no "others", just you.

Whatever, NK. You're free to think what you want, you always do. I'm happy for you that you've found favor with the admins, I don't need that sort of validation. I'd much rather be able to post here freely without others knowing I'm the admins' pet.

It's almost like you're still in high school. :)

Nah, you care or you wouldn't be dragging this on. If me having an animated avatar makes think this site is impartial then they are correct - it's a private site that is moderated the owners wish it to be moderated. If people aren't comfortable with that they are free to find another forum that matches their views. I mean for chrissakes it's just a website and I didn't even ask for the avatar.

Personally, I like the avitar that you use with the dufus head dorky guy. I laugh every time I see it... it is EXACTLY the way I picture you in "real" life... ha ha ha. Yes.. I think I am a HOOT! ;)

(oops... I didn't go and put my foot in my mouth did I?. that IS just a picture of a dufus head dorky guy and not YOU?) :D

Whatever, NK. You're free to think what you want, you always do. I'm happy for you that you've found favor with the admins, I don't need that sort of validation. I'd much rather be able to post here freely without others knowing I'm the admins' pet.

Well speech... not that my vote matters much... but I think you are smart, witty and politically correct and I enjoy all your posts... (yes, I'm a fan ;) ) I haven't found one single thing you have ever said that I disagreed with. (course... I'm not admin's pet:mad:)... BUT!! I'm darn fun, cute and sweet in the real world :cool:... go speechy!

It's almost like you're still in high school. :)

And for you I'm guessing AMHD is just like reality. :D

well speech....not that my vote matters much...but I think you are smart, witty and politically correct and I enjoy all your posts...(yes, i'm a fan ;) ) I haven't found one single thing you have ever said that i disagreed with. (course...i'm not admin's pet:mad:)...BUT!!!! i'm darn fun, cute and sweet in the real world :cool:.....go speechy!

Thanks Tessy, and you sure are darn fun. ;)

rachie,
Back to the topic.
Yes there are a lot of hypocrites in various Churches if not all of them.
Yes, there are a lot of people who hate in most of not all of them.
The most important part of this is that you and I should not be numbered with them.
We and others should be Jesus like and love everyone and only hate the sins.
Many people do not realize that Jesus taught by both word and example.
We should all try to follow his words AND the examples He set.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

rachie -

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your observations on religious people are carefully construed.

First off, judgementalness—if by that you mean a condemning attitude—is a cancer in its own right and stems from a heart that is devoid of perspective. It's one thing to wave the finger at people and condemn them with an attitude of superiority... "I cannot believe he/she would do such a thing because I would never do that." To such a person, the reality is that if a person were to be put in situation with the right conditions, he or she would fall to temptation. So, with respect to dealing with others we have to have an attitude of compassion and mercy.

Secondly, I would want to clarify something important, though. I have heard people say that to make moral judgments about people's behavior is akin to judging in the way that Jesus said not to do. That is a misconception. Take your post, for example. In your post, you made a moral assessment of Christians and judged that they were hypocrites. Well, if you or I are forbidden to make moral judgements of people's behavior, then you would be wrong for posting what you did. But common sense tells us that we have to make moral judgments in our lives all of the time. If you have children, won't you have to teach them what is right and wrong? How could you accomplish such a thing without making moral judgements? It's impossible not to and moreover, it's commonsensical to do.

Jesus made moral judgments against the Pharisees and warned them of their hypocrisy. He encouraged his followers to repent of their sin and believe in him for he was going to die for their sins. Over and over again, he made public his desire for people to obey God and trust in his mercy and forgiveness for their sins. But when he did that, he did it in a spirit of mercy and compassion. With others, he was extremely firm and sober in his tone. We ought to follow his example.

Lastly, we have to be able to rightly identify the things in life that are good and evil. We accomplish this by understanding the nature of both good and evil. If we point to Jesus as our reference for handling these controversial issues we must accept how it was he dealt with it. It is never right to pretend that evil is anything but evil. We must be both brutally honest with ourselves about our own evil tendencies as well as those we see in others. But we need not be police offers about it. As we relate to others, we are going to find at times a need to confront others with the truth as well as to be confronted by the truth ourselves. Rachie, you at times in your life have found yourself to be hypocritical. I have as well. So it stands to reason that if you have found yourself to be a hypocrite at points in your life, you can understand how others can as well. We are not people who always do what is right even when we may be people who have a strong moral vision. This is why God's mercy is so needed because "...all have fallen short of the glory of God."

Jake,

I heard once that years ago when people were asked their favorite verse in the Bible the majority would quote John 3:16 and NOW if asked the same question the verse that is quoted is the words of the Lord Jesus to the Jewish people. Judge not lest ye be judged. Interesting don't you think? You are correct in saying we should never pretend evil is NOT evil.

I don't know... correct me if you think I am out of line or not biblically correct. But as a Christian I don't stand in judgement of the world ( that is those without Christ) as a Christian I believe we are told to judge ourselves so we are NOT judged. That is what Paul says anyway in his letter to the Corinthians. He even goes on to say ( I think in thess.) that if anyone who calls himself a brother but does not follow what Paul taught.. not to even EAT with the person. So there does seem to be some judgement would be a Godly thing. The Lord called a spade a spade. That verse in Mathew 7 is taken WAAAY out of context... that is just my two cents.

Jake,

I heard once that years ago when people were asked their favorite verse in the Bible the majority would quote John 3:16 and NOW if asked the same question the verse that is quoted is the words of the Lord Jesus to the Jewish people. Judge not lest ye be judged. interesting don't ya think? You are correct in saying we should never pretend evil is NOT evil.

I don't know...correct me if you think I am out of line or not biblically correct. But as a Christian I don't stand in judgement of the world ( that is those without Christ) as a Christian I believe we are told to judge ourselves so we are NOT judged. That is what Paul says anyway in his letter to the Corinthians. He even goes on to say ( i think in thess.) that if anyone who calls himself a brother but does not follow what Paul taught..not to even EAT with the person. So there does seem to be some judgement would be a Godly thing. The Lord called a spade a spade. That verse in Mathew 7 is taken WAAAY outta context...that is just my two cents.


One final note... that is NOT to say I run around judging Christians... because I don't. I think we are to us some discernment.. that is all.

Jake,

I heard once that years ago when people were asked their favorite verse in the Bible the majority would quote John 3:16 and NOW if asked the same question the verse that is quoted is the words of the Lord Jesus to the Jewish people. Judge not lest ye be judged. interesting don't ya think? You are correct in saying we should never pretend evil is NOT evil.

I don't know...correct me if you think I am out of line or not biblically correct. But as a Christian I don't stand in judgement of the world ( that is those without Christ) as a Christian I believe we are told to judge ourselves so we are NOT judged. That is what Paul says anyway in his letter to the Corinthians. He even goes on to say ( i think in thess.) that if anyone who calls himself a brother but does not follow what Paul taught..not to even EAT with the person. So there does seem to be some judgement would be a Godly thing. The Lord called a spade a spade. That verse in Mathew 7 is taken WAAAY outta context...that is just my two cents.

Right, T, that is how I see it as well. I agree with your interpretation of Thess. Too. I'm in favor of letting God judge in the sense that Jesus meant it... which was to condemn. If anyone has the authority to save or destroy, it is God. But he expects us to make sense of his moral vision in our lives and in the lives of others. We must first make moral judgements of ourselves but sometimes as we observe the lives of others we can also learn from others sins. We don't need to point a condemning finger in their face but in love show people where they have erred. Now, I'm not advocating being a busy-body meddling around trying to point out others sins. But I don't think it's hard to consider a time and place in your life or mine where it was necessary to confront someone about something... doing so with that person's best interest in mind is a loving thing to do.

Ultimately, I think this only works in the context of some relationship shared with another person. Although, there are certainly times and places where standing up for what is good is necessary whether I know the person or not.

I appreciate your thoughts and think that they are well considered.

I believe that often people use the catch all phrase of hypocrite because they want to justify their not wanting to get to know God.

Although I do and have known many judgmental Christians BUT when we get face to face with God it isn't going to be about the hypocrite down the street, or the hypocrite that cheated you or the hypocrite in the pew next to you. Its going to be about you and you alone and why you rejected God. At least that is the way I look at it.

N0help4u,
You are right.
But...
I have not rejected God and never will.
Fred

I believe that often people use the catch all phrase of hypocrite because they want to justify their not wanting to get to know God.

Although I do and have known many judgmental Christians BUT when we get face to face with God it isn't going to be about the hypocrite down the street, or the hypocrite that cheated you or the hypocrite in the pew next to you. Its going to be about you and you alone and why you rejected God. At least that is the way I look at it.

Exactly... in the END all that matters is that age old question... what will YOU do with the Christ? As for me and my house... we will serve the Lord.

Incidentally, there isn't anyone other than the Lord who hasn't been hypocritical a time or two if they have lived any length of time...

I heard once that years ago when people were asked their favorite verse in the Bible

Tessy, I saw a video of a comedian (can't remember his name) who at an appearance was asked his favorite verse so he just pulled one from out of the blue. After that while signing autographs he added this verse reference to his autograph. The verse? Follow the link (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=38&v=1&t=KJV#comm/7).

Speech,

LOL that is funny! Hey, I guess he picked what he related to most.

He added something about people washing their hands after reading the verse. :)

Hmmmm? I'd recommend taking a SHOWER after he signed an autograph... tee hee :)

classyT,
Yes.
Hypocrites are many and everywhere.
I once visited a church with some friends and during that service a man walked and began shouting that everyone there was a hypocrite.
After his rant the ministers said, "Welcome home."
Peace and kindness,
Fred

classyT,
Yes.
Hypocrites are many and everywhere.
I once visited a church with some friends and during that service a man walked and began shouting that everyone there was a hypocrite.
After his rant the ministers said, "Welcome home."
Peace and kindness,
Fred

LOL... sometimes you just make me smile!

classyT,
I'm happy that that can be done.
Smile often.
Fred

Zig Ziglar often said, "If you let a hypocrite stand between you and God...which one of you is closer to God?"
And, "If you keep throwing dirt at people, you're just losing ground."
And, "the longer you nurse a grudge, the longer it takes to get better."

Christianity itself originated from Pagan beliefs...and if you ask me the bible or scripture was not meant to be taken literally. It is a group of stories written by human men. These human men wrote this things to help simple minded people understand the teachings. You can not take everything written there literally. These human men were influenced by spiritual forces, but they are not the direct words of God. Religion is about Faith, not about memorising and following a book word for word.

Maybe you and I have a different definition of "Christian".

When I use the word, I mean those who have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, meaning that they make every effort to be obedient to what Jesus taught.

Are you saying that this is of pagan origin?

Jeff,
Well said.
Fred

Zig Ziglar often said, "If you let a hypocrite stand between you and God...which one of you is closer to God?"
And, "If you keep throwing dirt at people, you're just losing ground."
And, "the longer you nurse a grudge, the longer it takes to get better."

These are wonderful quotes, thank for sharing them...
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/books-literature/quotes-have-influenced-your-life-171287.html

startover22,
Yes they are.
I also enjoyed them
Fred

Jesus had a very focused and organized ministry while in physical form.
The new order of Christianity is divided into far too many parts and along with that comes horrible manners and forgetfulness about who we are ("we" being individuals that subscribe to what is now known as "religiousity")
We're too concerned about rules in our divisions and should be focusing on our strengths as a group, not which sect of the faith we belong to.

There's a new ministry coming of age named RockNeuro who's mission it is to unify believers of Christ across all lines of division. We've been working on RockNeuro for 7 years to develop a radio sound, not the typical Christian Radio sound, but a showcase for the incredible number of artists that speak of relationships with God through their music. We find this music hidden all over, so that is why the sound of the station is so unique. We do something different though----we have announcers and DJ's that speak frankly about relationships with God and the TRUTH about life.
I'm the COO of this ministry and we have other parts of it that I cannot detail at this time, but we're looking for people to talk about what we do... please tell people.
Our intention is to give ministries and agencies that help people a forum and a place to collaborate, share resources, even combine to have buying power!

In our test streams we've been getting feedback that our sound is so compelling, people opt to not turn on the TV for their favorite shows and they listen to RockNeuro!
What an affirmation of our mission!

If you'd like to be kept posted about our "go-live" date, just let me know. In the meantime, know that there are millions of people that share your views. I do and everyone that has responded in a kind way certainly does!

God Bless you, and Thank You for asking this question.
It's a testament to your faith that you stand up and be heard.

In Christ,

Rev. Chad Stout

Lets not be so judgmental. We have no idea what is in the hearts and mind of others.
God is spirit, you can not feel Him with our hands or see Him with our eyes
Physically. We only have to believe. God gave us choices to make, it is up to us
To believe. It is the cry of our hearts to have a Savior to live in us and blessing us
Each day. David said "those who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing".
Ps. 34;10 He tell us "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29;11
This is where we are to keep our mind on the promises of God not on what others are
Doing or saying, we let evil enter our heart when we think on bad thoughts.
God loves us and will strengthen us to withstand the stresses and blows of this life.
God's indwelling presence of love and strength you and will wrap you in His loving arms.
Trusting, Loving, and Obeying. Choose to believe and stand on the promises of God.
Pray often, He is all ways there for us, He is waitting for us and wants to bless us.
Gods Word is the bible, speaking to us, it is how we get to know Him, He is His Word.
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
Was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made though Him, and
Without Him nothing was made that was made.

Love and Blessing, Maggie 3

There's a new ministry coming of age named RockNeuro who's mission it is to unify believers of Christ

Rev. Stout:

There is already a ministry of Unity in Christ, It is the Church of Jesus Christ; you call it the Roman Catholic Church. Commissioned by Christ its mission has been to do as commanded “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” It has done so faithfully "…as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.” (Dei Verbum) It has done so in Christ's spirit, as He prayed, “ And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (Cf John 17:20, 21) One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

JoeT

Rev. Stout:

There is already a ministry of Unity in Christ, It is the Church of Jesus Christ; you call it the Roman Catholic Church. Commissioned by Christ its mission has been to do as commanded “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” It has done so faithfully "…as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.” (Dei Verbum) It has done so in Christ’s spirit, as He prayed, “ And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (Cf John 17:20, 21) One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

JoeT

Come on joe you know there is always someone trying to reinvent the church. If it did what it is supposed to be doing it wouldn't need to be reinvented.

I cannot recall Jesus commanding anyone to build meeting halls, you cannot find it in the Great Commission "Go and build great meeting halls that the people should come and present their tythes", it's just not there. We would very much like the church to move forward but still it sits on its blessed assurance and no one goes. Jesus didn't say "have meetings and have them more abundantly". When is the last time you attended the Baptism of a new believer?

It has done so faithfully

BwaHaHahahaha!!

When ANY church that is Biblically sound, and goes on to duplicate the minisry of Jesus Christ, then THAT church is the true Church.

Without the miraculous (I'm not talking about weeping statues, supposed images of Jesus in various places, etc.) all you have left is a debating society. Useless!

When ANY church that is Biblically sound, and goes on to duplicate the ministry of Jesus Christ, then THAT church is the true Church.

And where is it written in Scripture that everybody who follows Christ can open a church? Wouldn't we eventually end up with as many churches as there are believers? Which is the better church; the biggest, the most architecturally pleasing, or maybe the one with the tallest steeple? Or do we not need churches; who would serve the sacraments?

JoeT

And where is it written in Scripture that everybody who follows Christ can open a church? Wouldn't we eventually end up with as many churches as there are believers? Which is the better church; the biggest, the most architecturally pleasing, or maybe the one with the tallest steeple? Or do we not need churches; who would serve the sacraments?

JoeT

You didn't address any points in my previous post.

There is only ONE Church. It is the corporate Body of Christ, His representative on planet Earth, and it DOES continue the ministry that Jesus began, and as we see it furthered in the history of the Bood of Acts.

Does your church exhibit the ministry of Christ and those whose ministries are shown in the Book of Acts that did so?

The Church has NOTHING to do with buildings, steeples, or any other efifice.The earliest church congregations met in member's homes.

Any believer is authorized to administer baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Without the miraculous (I'm not talking about weeping statues, supposed images of Jesus in various places, etc.) all you have left is a debating society. Useless!!

That is, of course, provided you are allowed to debate, but we know that in such Churches debate is stiffleled, this is why what you have left is an empty shell. What did Jesus say white tombs full of dead men's bones, somehow I think he was being prophetic when he made that statement

You didn't address any points in my previous post.

There is only ONE Church. It is the corporate Body of Christ, His representative on planet Earth, and it DOES continue the ministry that Jesus began, and as we see it furthered in the history of the Blood of Acts.

Precisely, one Body of Christ, one faith; a mystical body you call the Roman Catholic Church this is the “one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts,[ Cf. 1 Cor. 11:18-19; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Jn. 2:18-19] which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable…For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessing of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. During its pilgrimage on earth, this people, though guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to his hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3)

This is what was being explained to Rev. Stout. There already is One Church in unity with Christ.


Does your church exhibit the ministry of Christ and those whose ministries are shown in the Book of Acts that did so?

In Christ’s Church we hold that the Acts of the Apostles is a view of the formation of the Catholic Church by the Apostles. (It’s Christ’s Church, not my Church) In Acts the first twelve chapters are of St. Peter’s preaching and in the remaining chapters we read of the Apostle (sometimes called the 13th Apostle). Acts isn’t simply a history of the early Catholic Church, it paints its ordeal in feeling it’s way with the help of the Holy Spirit. In acts we see the continuation of Luke’s Gospel with the risen Christ, and the acts of the Christian missionaries and communities in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus and other parts of the Roman Empire. We see the Catholic Apostles given power of the Holy Spirit working in its Church defending it so that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Therefore, we find Christ’s Church is “compared, not without significance, to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature, inseparably united to him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a somewhat similar way, does the social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ who vivifies it, in the building up of the body (cf. Eph. 4:15).” (Lumen Gentium , I)

We have various images of the Church such as the sheepfold or the bride of Christ; driven by the Holy Spirit she plays her part in fulfilling God’s plan constituted by Christ for our salvation and the salvation of the world. Her human shepherds commissioned by their Lord and is called the ‘building of God (1 Cor. 3:9), built on Peter, the rock. The Church is our redemption in Christ even in her poverty and oppression “clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal.” (Cf. Lumen Gentium, I)


Yes , I see the Acts of Catholics ministering to the one
The Church has NOTHING to do with buildings, steeples, or any other edifice. The earliest church congregations met in member's homes.

A building normally takes on the name of the function that takes place in it, i.e. the courthouse is the building in which the court resides. A church is no different, e.g. the Church is where Christ resides; so in the same sense it is about buildings, edifices, columns, cornices, etc, allegorically and literally. And her body members “are God's coadjutors… are God's husbandry… are God's building.” Paul goes on to tell us that, “According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation: and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus.” (1 Cor. 3:9-11) Yes, the Roman Church is a building, a group of buildings, a congregation, a collage of congregations making God's university called the Roman Catholic Church.


JoeT

A building normally takes on the name of the function that takes place in it, i.e. the courthouse is the building in which the court resides. A church is no different, e.g. the Church is where Christ resides; so in the same sense it is about buildings, edifices, columns, cornices, etc, allegorically and literally. And her body members “are God's coadjutors… are God's husbandry… are God's building.” Paul goes on to tell us that, “According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation: and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus.” (1 Cor. 3:9-11) Yes, the Roman Church is a building, a group of buildings, a congregation, a collage of congregations making God's university called the Roman Catholic Church.


JoeT

Joe Christ doesn't reside in a Church building, He resides in the hearts of the believers. The Church is the people not a building. If your church is a building you have placed your faith in the wrong place bricks and mortar cannot save you

paraclete,
Jesus IS in the Church building I go yo in the form of the Holy Eucharist.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Well, the bible does say this:

Where two are three are gathered together in MY name there am I in the midst.


All I would say is... wherever you are gathering to worship the Lord... just make sure you are gathering to HIS name.

For there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.

Personally I worship at a non denominational building.. for the real church is simply the body of Christ and that includes EVERY believer... no matter what denomination.

I can see no where in scripture that places a position of authority OR a leader in the Church as more HOLY than anyone else. We are made the righteousness of Christ when we accept him.. we are place IN him and Him IN us after we believed. But we are sanctified by how we walk. We are ALL to be holy for HE is holy.

Right? Or am I wrong?

Tess

For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.

What a bunch of arrogant crap. I find it supremely ironic that even though Jesus attacked the very idea of a "chosen people", many of his supposed followers continue to embrace it fervently.

Precisely, one Body of Christ, one faith; a mystical body you call the Roman Catholic Church this is the “one and only Church of God

I know you guys mean this in all sincerity, but this is perhaps the most arrogant, outrageous, nonsensical belief in all of Christianity.

I know you guys mean this in all sincerity, but this is perhaps the most arrogant, outrageous, nonsensical belief in all of Christianity.

I second that.

Well, the bible does say this: Where two are three are gathered together in MY name there am I in the midst.

All I would say is... wherever you are gathering to worship the Lord... just make sure you are gathering to HIS name.
Simply gathering in His name does not constitute a Church. We cannot take the phase “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” found in Matthew chapter 18 as saying that a church is formed. If this was true then each time any two Christians came together a church would be constituted, which we know to be silly. If this were the case we’d have a severely schizophrenic God, telling this church one thing, this other church something else. Paraphrasing St. Cyprian we see that gathering together is predicated on orthodoxy, being compliant with the Church. To suggest that two gathered together can form a new or different church would be saying that Christ’s intent was to divide the Twelve, which we know not to be the case. Matthew, chapter 18, v. 17 through 20 tells us that Christ is actually giving authority to the Apostles and their successors binding our faith to the Church. (Cf. St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae circa 250 A.D.)


For there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. Agreed.


Personally I worship at a non denominational building.. for the real church is simply the body of Christ and that includes EVERY believer... no matter what denomination.
Catholics hold that they too are the body of Christ, and that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. (Cf John 15:5-12) Catholics are bound together in a supernatural life through the Christ centered sacraments as one body with Christ as it’s head. “17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread. “ (Cf1 Cor. 10:17) There is only one Church of Jesus Christ.


I can see nowhere in scripture that places a position of authority OR a leader in the Church as more HOLY than anyone else. We are made the righteousness of Christ when we accept him... we are place IN him and Him IN us after we believed. But we are sanctified by how we walk. We are ALL to be holy for HE is holy.
I see an authority referred to in Scripture; to the Apostles He said, “teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt 28:20)


Right? Or am I wrong?
Tess

I let you decide that for yourself.

JoeT

"There is only one Church of Jesus Christ"

I think we all agree on that, we just don't agree that it is manifested as the "Roman Catholic Church." I realize this is one of those issues on which we'll have to agree to disagree in all likelihood but it is just a claim for which I can find no scriptural basis.

I know all the arguments, it doesn't mean we can't find salvation or that we aren't an "ecclesiastical community," we're just "separated brethren" who are a little "defective."
Doesn't scripture say a thing or two about such arrogance, such pretense, such judgmentalism?

Who decided we were kind of OK, but defective anyway? Was it the sixteenth Council which declared all, even the pope were subject to the Council? Or was it say, the twentieth Council which declared the Pope's definitions were "irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church? Or did that come later?

Didn't Peter himself give an indication of how wrongheaded such a belief is, when he declared "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."

It doesn't matter if you're Catholic, Baptist or whatever, it only matters that your heart is "purified by faith" in Christ.

Simply gathering in His name does not constitute a Church. We cannot take the phase “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” found in Matthew chapter 18 as saying that a church is formed. If this was true then each time any two Christians came together a church would be constituted, which we know to be silly. If this were the case we'd have a severely schizophrenic God, telling this church one thing, this other church something else. Paraphrasing St. Cyprian we see that gathering together is predicated on orthodoxy, being compliant with the Church. To suggest that two gathered together can form a new or different church would be saying that Christ's intent was to divide the Twelve, which we know not to be the case. Matthew, chapter 18, v. 17 thru 20 tells us that Christ is actually giving authority to the Apostles and their successors binding our faith to the Church. (Cf. St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae circa 250 A.D.)

Agreed.


Catholics hold that they too are the body of Christ, and that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. (Cf John 15:5-12) Catholics are bound together in a supernatural life through the Christ centered sacraments as one body with Christ as it's head. “17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread. “ (Cf1 Cor. 10:17) There is only one Church of Jesus Christ.


I see an authority referred to in Scripture; to the Apostles He said, “teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt 28:20)



I let you decide that for yourself.

JoeT

Joe DarlinC,

The only church I am aware of is the body of Christ which is ALL true believers. I was simply saying wherever you choose to gather to worship make sure it is to HIS name and NOT a organization. So we disagreed. But we often do! :)

Also... We don't have a schizophrenic God... we just have many people who have NO idea how to rightly divide the word of God and therefore get very very confused and trapped in wrong doctrine.

I think we all agree on that, we just don't agree that it is manifested as the "Roman Catholic Church." I realize this is one of those issues on which we'll have to agree to disagree in all likelihood but it is just a claim for which I can find no scriptural basis.
It's not a claim, rather it's scriptural. It can be shown both scripturally as well as through Tradition.


I know all the arguments; it doesn't mean we can't find salvation or that we aren't an "ecclesiastical community," we're just "separated brethren" who are a little "defective."

I never stated you couldn't find salvation. I only stated that the fullness of faith is found in the RC Church.


Doesn't scripture say a thing or two about such arrogance, such pretense, such judgmentalism?

Arrogant I can be; but I took no pretense nor did I pass judgment.


Who decided we were kind of OK, but defective anyway? Was it the sixteenth Council which declared all, even the pope were subject to the Council? Or was it say, the twentieth Council which declared the Pope's definitions were "irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church? Or did that come later?

The decision was made by Christ; remember the founding of the RCC is found in Scripture as written by the Apostles. So, it is an Apostolic Church.


Didn't Peter himself give an indication of how wrongheaded such a belief is, when he declared "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." It doesn't matter if you're Catholic, Baptist or whatever, it only matters that your heart is "purified by faith" in Christ .

Nobody made any judgments in an attempt to determine what's in the heart; a lot has been read into what I've said that simply isn't there – a sort of subjective prejudice I suspect (now that was a judgment!). There is a difference, small on many issues, huge differences on others. If it wasn't obvious that there was a difference you wouldn't be so angry. If in fact you are saying there is no difference from one Christian religion to the next using a subjective judgment – are you discriminating on what feels good? Where did Christ say “one faith in me is as good as another?” It's my recollection he said something altogether different; “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:20)

JoeT

It’s not a claim, rather it's scriptural. It can be shown both scripturally as well as through Tradition.

Please do.


I never stated you couldn’t find salvation.

I believe I acknowledged that it "doesn't mean we can't find salvation."


I only stated that the fullness of faith is found in the RC Church.

Yes, that goes with the other claims I listed, all of which are accurate according to the Vatican are they not?


Arrogant I can be; but I took no pretense nor did I pass judgment.

I've seen numerous Catholics say such things as "the fullness of faith is found in the RC Church" and the Roman Catholic Church is "the one and only church" without seeing the arrogance, the pretense and the judgment in the statements. This is the problem.

I don't go around telling my Catholic friends that they don't have the fullness of the faith, that my church is "the one and only church" or that their church is "defective." That is EXACTLY the kind of thing Jesus himself battled. That is EXACTLY what Paul - who never showed any subservience to Peter or any other - battled.


The decision was made by Christ; remember the founding of the RCC is found in Scripture as written by the Apostles. So, it is an Apostolic Church.

Right, Peter was a Roman Catholic. Please explain that one.


Nobody made any judgments in an attempt to determine what’s in the heart; a lot has been read into what I’ve said that simply isn’t there – a sort of subjective prejudice I suspect (now that was a judgment!). There is a difference, small on many issues, huge differences on others. If it wasn’t obvious that there was a difference you wouldn’t be so angry.

First of all Joe I'm not angry and my judgment was on the claim of the RCC being "the one and only church," not you. I acknowledged first your sincerity, but that the problem is even in that sincerity those who make such claims can't see the arrogance and condescension of the claim.


If in fact you are saying there is no difference from one Christian religion to the next using a subjective judgment – are you discriminating on what feels good?

No, on what is true. The changed lives, the miraculous prayers answered, the magnificent ministries in place, completely apart from the RCC in the name of Christ give lie to any claims of exclusivity or superiority in the Catholic Church.


Where did Christ say “one faith in me is as good as another?” It’s my recollection he said something altogether different; “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:20)

One - in Christ - which is an impossibility if one church sees every other as lesser. Can't you see that Joe? I can hardly be one with you if you see the body of Christ I belong to as inferior.

Simply gathering in His name does not constitute a Church. We cannot take the phase “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” found in Matthew chapter 18 as saying that a church is formed. If this was true then each time any two Christians came together a church would be constituted, which we know to be silly. If this were the case we’d have a severely schizophrenic God, telling this church one thing, this other church something else.


For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained


JoeT

I see you continue to hold to old beliefs discredited by Vatican II. If Catholics have not abandoned this "we are the only true Church" rubbish, I fear for them. God is never schitzo, only his followers exhibit this traint. How you can read the Word of God and believe the rubbish you do is beyond me. There is legitimate expression in diversity just because Jesus told us when two or three are gathered in my name there I am in the midst.

We Christians hold to the truth of Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice but Christ makes his home in the heart of the believer not in a building, Therefore when believers come together in Christ's name there is power irrespective of whether they are in a Church building or not. Some of the most powerful experiences I have had in God have been in a home where a prayer meeting is being conducted and not a dog collar in sight.

Joe DarlinC,

The only church I am aware of is the body of Christ which is ALL true believers.
I disagree – but we'll save the discussion for another time.


I was simply saying wherever you choose to gather to worship make sure it is to HIS name and NOT a organization. So we disagreed. But we often do! :)
I can agree in spirit – yes we should all gather together in His name.


Also... We don't have a schizophrenic God... we just have many people who have NO idea how to rightly divide the word of God and therefore get very very confused and trapped in wrong doctrine.

There is only one Truth, God's truth. There is only one reality, God's reality. It's not a subjective truth, nor is it relative to our condition of being, it is an absolute Truth. Of all the Christian churches, there is one and only one true Church, God's Church. Of all religions, Christian or otherwise, there is only one true Church, God's Church.

Bringing any two different religions together to discern which is correct and which isn't different tenets become obvious, different morals are seen, and we can find different truths held by each. If they didn't then they would be the same Church. In our discernment we see that there are only two conclusions we can draw; one is correct or they are both wrong, but we know that God's word isn't wrong because it is Truth. Therefore we can come to only one conclusion; there is only One True Church. Another truism is that Scriptures as well as the teaching of Apostles' are true. They teach that there is only One Church commissioned by Christ which is headed by Peter and his successors, it was true when uttered by Christ, it was true in the first century after Christ's ascension, it was true 400 years after Christ's ascension and it was true in 1520 as well as today. To believe otherwise would mean that there is a division being created; truth versus untruth - with both to be held equal, i.e. relativism. Our discernment can only end with the one conclusion. There is one and only One Church; to hold otherwise would mean God is schizophrenic.

JoeT

I see you continue to hold to old beliefs discredited by Vatican II. If Catholics have not abandoned this "we are the only true Church" rubbish, I fear for them.

Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium are both Vatican II documents - I cited both. I didn’t offer you my beliefs, even still I hold to those of the RCC. As previously cited, the Roman Catholic Church holds itself as the “one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts,[ Cf. 1 Cor. 11:18-19; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Jn. 2:18-19] which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable…For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.” Can such views be classified as ‘diverse’ views when a Catholic expresses them? Or not? Or are only non-Catholic views valid?


God is never schitzo, only his followers exhibit this traint. How you can read the Word of God and believe the rubbish you do is beyond me. There is legitimate expression in diversity just because Jesus told us when two or three are gathered in my name there I am in the midst.

You’re correct, God isn’t schizophrenic from which we can conclude that he doesn’t commission separate churches with different tenets. Whether it is legitimate to express diverse views isn’t the same as saying that those diverse views hold the same absolute Truth.


We Christians hold to the truth of Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice but Christ makes his home in the heart of the believer not in a building, Therefore when believers come together in Christ's name there is power irrespective of whether they are in a Church building or not. Some of the most powerful experiences I have had in God have been in a home where a prayer meeting is being conducted and not a dog collar in sight.

? I’m at a loss, what does a spying a dog collar nearby have to do with our discussion?

JoeT

? I’m at a loss, what does a spying a dog collar nearby have to do with our discussion?

JoeT

Joe you know very well that when I speak of a dog collar I speak of clergy, an invention of an apostate church

Joe,
It should be no surprise to all that I do agree with you.
Jesus founded but one Church and appointed Peter as its leader.
The bible shows us that the other apostles went along with that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Right, Peter was a Roman Catholic. Please explain that one.

You're absolutely correct, Peter was the first Pope and by extension the first Catholic. I like to show this by starting with Scriptural proofs. Afterwards, I'll show historical proof.

In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:

13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

In the way of setting the scene; Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.

You can imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop, asking twice (not once but twice), “Whom to they say that I am?” No other disciples could give the answer but Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed to Simon what no other man on earth knew; Christ was the Second Person of the One Devine God.

17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I can't claim any significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women... 45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be; and once in Matthew 16:17. It's only used once by Jesus. (this holds true in the NKJV as well) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor's gives judgment,” ( the first Vicar of Christ starts with St. Peter who is succeeded by St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI)

In plain language the meaning of the verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Rock and on this Rock I will build my church; hell won't prevail against it.

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

“In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, “the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man's name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ's words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew's Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135

Mat 16:15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

In verse 17 Christ is obviously pleased seeing that this knowledge didn't come from human reason, but rather the knowledge was a Grace from Aba (Father). Some have suggested that the re-naming of Simon to a little pebble in v. 18 is a reprimand. Consiqently they would have Jesus say, effectively, Woe to you Peter... you have not gained access, yet you have stopped those who wished to enter! But, thereafter say, I will build a church on your faith to which the gates of hell will not prevail. Excuse me for finding this impossible to swallow. It doesn't even meet the definition of “scripture interprets scripture.”

One interesting note is that in the book Revelations we see a discussion of the keys found in Matthew 16; especially the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name.” The key of the House of David relate to the same earthly keys given Eliacim, son of Helcias. "the key of the house of David" which is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of full and unlimited authority over the Kingdom of Juda. This too would be a direct reference to the Primacy of authority, a very good reason to accept St. Peter as the Prince of the Church Militant (the earthly Church). But I would suggest it wasn't the set of keys conferred on St. Peter, the keys to heaven the right to bind or loose in heaven and earth. The reason is that these keys in the book of Revelations are located in heaven, held by an angel church that is using the keys to keep open the door, presumably the door of holy righteousness. Another reason I don't think they are the same keys is because we see three sets of keys in sacred Scripture, the Keys of Heaven, the Key of the bottomless pit (hell), and the Keys of the House of David. Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet: and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth. And there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit. But in Revelations, where John is escorted through God's Kingdom in Heaven, we don't hear of the Key's of Heaven. Are we to presume that there are Keys to earthly kingdoms, hellish kingdoms, but no keys to heaven in heaven? The reason they're not mentioned is that the Keys to Heaven reside with the Successors of St. Peter

In addition, we find that each time the Twelve are listed in Scripture; deference most always places Peter first among equals. For these reasons, and other not mentioned Catholics hold Peter the Apostle on which Christ built his Church, the first Pope.

It's important to note, that these were the Bishops and Popes that followed Peter. They didn't need to write a book, they lived the history of Apostolic succession and knew its teaching authority first hand. To these men head of the Church was fused to the Chair of Peter since Peter's death.

I've managed to collect nearly 20 pages of various quotes from the early Church dating from the early Church, approximately 90 AD to about 400 AD. Each consistently shows that Peter was held to be the Prime Bishop, Bishop of Bishops, the Bishop of Rome the first See, holder of the keys, etc. But I will only bore you with the first two pages. It's quite clear that Peter was clearly understood to be the first Vicar of Christ.

Doctrine and authority of the bishop in Rome was then passed to Clement I (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm), bishop of Rome (circa 90 AD rebuked the Corinthian authority. It is likely the Apostle John was still alive. Pope Clement both rebukes the schism to pull the Corinthian Church in line. Here too we see a further congealing of the Church's Apostolic and priestly structure.

We see a historical continuance the Church in the latter part of the first century. A well defined hierarchy can be clearly deduced. In The Shepherd of Hermas (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02011.htm), Hermas wrote, “You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens[bishop of Rome] and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his [authoritative letter] to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so.” It's not until 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon do we see the primacy of Peter being challenged mostly by Greek patriarchs.

St. Ignatius holds a marked reverence (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm)for the founders of the Christian faith in Rome as well as a respect for their authority. Furthermore he seems to be deferring to Rome on several matters in his epistle to the Romans, c 110 AD. When arrested and sent to Rome to eventually be martyred sometime between 98 and 117, he entrusts his diocese in Antioch to the Roman See; twice using the term prokathetai (primacy); “has the primacy in the place of the region of the Romans” presiding in love (prokathemene tes agapes). Furthermore we find St Ignatius using phases such as 'first-seat' and the Episcopal seat, "You [the Roman bishop] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1).

Marching through time we find St. Irenaeus of Lyon, writing around 180 AD (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm), " Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

St. Irenaeus describes St. Victor's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm) excommunication of the Asian Churches from the Universal Church in other writings. Equally important was the fact that no one challenged St. Victor's authority in the excommunication. St. Victor was the bishop of Rome, 189-19. St. Irenaeus wrote to him and pleaded with him not to do it, for the sake of the peace of the Church, and St. Victor relented.

St. Clement (http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:RVUe2AjilwUJ:www.newadvent.org/fathers/0207.htm+%22the+blessed+Peter,+the+chosen%22+site: newadvent.org&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) of Alexandria (between 190-210 AD), in Clement, On the Rich Man, writes, " Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, Matthew 17:27 quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? Lo, we have left all and followed You. “

Tertullian (c. 200 AD) refers to the Pope as the first bishop of bishops, “ Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men” From which we can also deduce that it was important to trace the heredity of the bishop to the Apostles. "

Tertullian (http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:kCPXodEvy04J:www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm+%22from+the+knowledge+of+Peter%22+site:ne wadvent.org&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) also wrote, " What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, when they were alone, He used to expound all things Mark 4:34 which were obscure, telling them that to them it was given to know those mysteries, Matthew 13:11 which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built, who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?." Depeictied here is the knowledge that Christ ordained his Apostles, establish His Church in them, commissioned them to teach with Christ's authority symbolized in the keys.


Tertullian writes further, "Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones [cathedrae] of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each. Achaia is near you, so you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi. If you can cross into Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, 'whence also our authority derives'. How happy is that Church, on which Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's [the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffering no hurt, was exiled to an island."

Joe you know very well that when I speak of a dog collar I speak of clergy, an invention of an apostate church
I’ve seen and done quite a few things in my life; some good, some not so good. I’ve always spoken straight forward and up front - its been taken wrong and misunderstood a number of times. But I hope this type of disrespect cannot be counted among my sins; I find it distasteful.

JoeT

Joe,
It should be no surprise to all that I do agree with you.
Jesus founded but one Church and appointed Peter as its leader.
The bible shows us that the other apostles went along with that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thanks Fred, I never doubted where you stood.

JoeT

not a dog collar in sight.

Maggie 3: do you really agree with disrespecting the clergy when they wear a Roman collar? I knew we didn't often agree, but surly you don't agree with this? Have I misjudged you?

JoeT

JoeT777,
Very well done.
Thanks,
Fred

No other disciples could give the answer but Simon.

Please explain how "no other disciple could give the answer but Peter." That sure seems like a mighty grand assumption.


In plain language the meaning of the verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Rock and on this Rock I will build my church; hell won’t prevail against it.

And yet somehow every time this discussion comes up the rest of the passage is ignored. The parts where Jesus asked all of his disciples who he was and the part immediately following he charged all of his disciples "that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ," as if Peter was the only who got who He was. And then there's that part where Jesus called Peter an "offense" to Him. Even Peter, as does the rest of scripture makes clear that Jesus Christ Himself is the foundation of the church, not any man. The only Rock on which the church is built is Christ Himself, as Peter acknowledged.


The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

How can you take one brief passage, where Christ was speaking to all of His disciples, and conclude He gave "supreme authority" over the church to Peter - particularly when as I mentioned earlier Peter himself was rebuked by Paul for his dissension from the gospel?


“In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some.. "

Word play is not needed to make the case.


One interesting note is that in the book Revelations we see a discussion of the keys found in Matthew 16; especially the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David.

How can you use the example of Christ, "the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David," the One who Himself gave them "a door opened, which no man can shut" as a "very good reason" to accept the primacy of Peter? In the passage Christ has the key, Christ opened the door, and no man can shut it. To every church in Revelation Christ was the one speaking. Where exactly did Peter come in here?


Are we to presume that there are Keys to earthly kingdoms, hellish kingdoms, but no keys to heaven in heaven? The reason they’re not mentioned is that the Keys to Heaven reside with the Successors of St. Peter

I'm not presuming or assuming anything. Scripture is clear as clear can be that no man needs the successors of Peter to enter the gates of heaven. I'm sorry, but I believe it is an affront to God to assume that no one can enter the kingdom of heaven without going through the successors of Peter. I have the keys to the kingdom of heaven in scripture, where the only specific requirement given is to believe in Christ.

Paul, in writing to the Roman church (why was it Paul and not Peter?) declared "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

He then goes on to say even so, even though the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, everyone is without excuse because "that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them." Where is Peter here?


In addition, we find that each time the Twelve are listed in Scripture; deference most always places Peter first among equals.

Again, what is Paul's place in this? Why did Paul pen most of the New Testament? Why did Paul write to the Roman church with a most thorough exposition on the doctrines of salvation and grace? Why did Paul rebuke Peter if he should have given him deference? Why did Christ use John to reveal things to come in the church and not Peter?


It’s not until 451 AD at the Council of Chalcedon do we see the primacy of Peter being challenged mostly by Greek patriarchs.

But when do we first see the primacy of Peter clearly established in these historical writings?


founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul

Peter and Paul? The "two most glorious apostles?"


For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

I can't argue with that, it supports my position entirely.


" Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, Matthew 17:27 quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? Lo, we have left all and followed You. “

I see nothing contradictory with my position here.


" What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, when they were alone, He used to expound all things Mark 4:34 which were obscure, telling them that to them it was given to know those mysteries, Matthew 13:11"

"Masters," teachers," "them," "their," "they." Joe, I don't deny some early authority in the Roman church, I don't deny apostolic succession, I don't deny a hierarchy in the church. But I don't see any clear declaration of Peter's supreme authority over the entire church of Christ. Tertullian seems to have come closest, but even he concludes your argument with praise of the work and sacrifice for that church by Peter, Paul and John. I wholeheartedly recognize the same. But I do not see any justification anywhere that I have to go through the Roman Catholic Church in any way to get through the gates of heaven.

Please explain how "no other disciple could give the answer but Peter." That sure seems like a mighty grand assumption.
Tweren’t no assumption atall. Christ tells us why, ” Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 16:15-17)

And yet somehow every time this discussion comes up the rest of the passage is ignored. The parts where Jesus asked all of his disciples who he was and the part immediately following he charged all of his disciples "that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ," as if Peter was the only who got who He was.
I’m not sure what significance this plays, except that the Apostles did as they were told. It was known to all of the Apostles; the verses 13-15 tell us they were involved in the conversation. Furthermore, verse 20 uses the plural of ‘disciple’ telling us that all the disciples knew.

And then there's that part where Jesus called Peter an "offense" to Him. Even Peter, as does the rest of scripture makes clear that Jesus Christ Himself is the foundation of the church, not any man. The only Rock on which the church is built is Christ Himself, as Peter acknowledged.
Peter’s offenses or sins merely show his humanity. Catholics is a community of both the holy and the sinner. There is a building technique used today when the founding soils are too soft to support the building. This technique ‘stresses’ the soils to consolidate it into loadbearing mass. I often think of Peter’s offenses in the same way – stressing the foundation on which Christ builds a great Church.

Most all buildings are built and named after the founder (the ‘authority’ that caused the construction). The foundation is that which supports the founder’s wishes. Thus we have Christ the “founder” (the authority) designating Peter to the task of supporting the founder’s Church; primarily because of his faith was bequeathed by God, i.e. Peter is the Foundation of the Church.


The founder is Christ, the foundation is Peter as designated by Christ the founder. Seems straight forward to me; as you read scripture the sense is Christ is the founder, and Peter is the foundation.

It seems to me that breaking down Matthew 16:16-19 into their essential elements we have the following bits of fact:

1. Christ is the authority, the founder of the Church. It is His name that the Roman Church bears.
2. Christ knew Peter’s revelation that Jesus was God, recognizing the supernatural source of his faith
3. Christ named Simon Bar-Jona to “Rock” The title of Peter's office.
4. Peter was handed the authority and designated as the “foundation” on which Christ builds his Church.
5. The gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church
6. The keys to bind and loosen where given to Peter.

In this we see the classic transfer of power from a more authoritative source to a lesser authority. Christ has the authority to give Peter a subservient role. In so doing, Peter is given a title, “the Rock” on which He can ultimately rely on. The only thing left is the wherewithal to accomplish the goal, the building a Church. This is done with the keys. In the keys are the powers with which Peter needs to accomplish his assigned goals; the power to bind and loosen – in heaven or on earth. Any authority must designate who has power, the extent of that power, and must provide the wherewithal to accomplish the goals. We see all of this in Matthew 16.

Thus, Peter was given a title of for his office, a mission to accomplish, and the wherewithal to achieve his goal. Only the most convoluted logic can come to any other conclusion from this passage. Peter the first Pope.


How can you take one brief passage, where Christ was speaking to all of His disciples, and conclude He gave "supreme authority" over the church to Peter - particularly when as I mentioned earlier Peter himself was rebuked by Paul for his dissension from the gospel?
You don’t take one passage. But if you take the entire New and Old Testaments it can be shown that Christ’s mission on earth had several facets. One was fulfillment of the Old Testament, another was performing miracles, important here is that Christ established his Kingdom on Earth, i.e. the Church. Without establishing a Kingdom, Christ could never be the messianic savior promised in the Old Testament.


How can you use the example of Christ, "the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David," the One who Himself gave them "a door opened, which no man can shut" as a "very good reason" to accept the primacy of Peter? In the passage Christ has the key, Christ opened the door, and no man can shut it. To every church in Revelation Christ was the one speaking. Where exactly did Peter come in here?
The point was that in Revelations the Key that “openeth and no man shutteth” is in heaven. The Key of Eliacim is the Key of authority of Juda. So, two of the three keys are accounted for. The third Key, the Key to Bind an loose is not mentioned in Revelations. Where is it? Who has it if Peter or his successor doesn’t? Where are the missing Keys? The point is that the Keys were important symbols of authority in antiquity, and Peter was given the Keys to bind and loosen. Thus we hold that the authority Christ vested in Peter remains in his successors.



I'm not presuming or assuming anything. Scripture is clear as clear can be that no man needs the successors of Peter to enter the gates of heaven. I'm sorry, but I believe it is an affront to God to assume that no one can enter the kingdom of heaven without going through the successors of Peter. I have the keys to the kingdom of heaven in scripture, where the only specific requirement given is to believe in Christ.
I would suggest that the Scriptures can only be clear when we look at Christ as the Messianic King establishing his Kingdom on Earth. Only then is the New Testament in harmony from book to book, chapter to chapter as well as being in harmony with the Old Testament. That Kingdom is known today as the Roman Catholic Church.

JoeT

Tweren’t no assumption atall. Christ tells us why, ” Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 16:15-17)

Joe, I'm not going to continue to argue, I said from the beginning we would end up agreeing to disagree. But that absolutely does not give ANY indication that "no other disciple could give the answer but Peter.


That Kingdom is known today as the Roman Catholic Church.

And I asked, and you never answered, how in God's name can the church be "one" if you consider us defective? I acknowledge the history of the early church, but the Roman Catholic Church is a far cry from that church.

The OP title, "hypocrites and haters" are words that are often thrown at anyone who dares to say that the lifestyle of the one using these terms is wrong.

Telling someone he is wrong is not hatred.

It is only hypocritical if the person pointing out the sin is just as guilty andis making no effort to change his/her own behavour.

Pointing out someone's error or sin can very well be tough love.

Now a question:

Acts 19:1-2
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
(KJV)

That question is just as pertinent today as it was then.

How could the Apostles tell that believers had received the Holy Ghost?

Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(KJV)

Acts 10:45-47
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
(KJV)

Acts 19:6
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
(KJV)

Acts 8:18-19
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
(KJV)

In this case something happened that was immediately obvious. If not speaking with tongues, then what?

No one will ever convince me that having a wafer placed on your tongue and being patted on the cheek equals being filled with the Holy Ghost.

The Church of the Book of Acts is plainly a Holy Ghost Church. When did that change into an institution founded on form and ceremony? This question should be seriously considered by all denominations.

Also... I would like to note that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. AND... the mystery of the "church" wasn't revealed UNTIL Paul Through Paul by the Lord Jesus Christ. During Christ ministry... poor ol Peter had NO clue of what was going to happen. He had no clue Christ had to die... he had no clue gentiles were going to be included. He didn't even know what the church really was. ( the bride of Christ) Even when he spoke to the Jews in the book of Acts and 3000 Jews were saved.. he didn't understand the plan of salvation. Because it still had not been revealed! Which by the way is believing in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord and accepting it by faith. He was waiting for the Lord Jesus to return and set up His earthy Kingdom.

Give me the verse that the KINGDOM is the Roman Catholic church! I'd LOVE to see THAT in the word of GOD.

Don't get me wrong.. Peter is one of my favorite apostles but Paul had to "get on him" so to speak for going back to legalism.

There is NOTHING in the epistles to suggest that the little assemblies being started were Roman Catholic. QUITE the contrary.

And I asked, and you never answered, how in God's name can the church be "one" if you consider us defective? I acknowledge the history of the early church, but the Roman Catholic Church is a far cry from that church.

One Church or one church in Unity is the first of four marks of the Church i.e. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. What it’s not is a ordered military unit that marches in step with everybody expressing themselves the same, or holding identical understanding of Scripture. In fact, a Catholic is free to interpret the vast majority of Scripture in any reasonable fashion he wants.

The True Church is marked with an internal and external spirit of unity. It is united with Christ and each of its members in its doctrine, reception of the sacraments, and obedience to its authority. It is not the duty of the Catholic to adhere ‘religiously’ out of fear, but rather to conforming both reason and the heart to the will of God and thereby the will of the Church. Unity is adherence to an objective and absolute truth revealed by God.

We find this unity in Scripture and tradition. The following are scriptural evidence of Unity.


• Speaking of His Church, the Saviour called it a kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God (Matthew 13:24, 31, 33; Luke 13:18; John 18:36);
• He compared it to a city the keys of which were entrusted to the Apostles (Matthew 5:14; 16:19),
• to a sheepfold to which all His sheep must come and be united under one shepherd (John 10:7-17);
• to a vine and its branches,
• to a house built upon a rock against which not even the powers of hell should ever prevail (Matthew 16:18).
• Moreover, the Saviour, just before He suffered, prayed for His disciples, for those who were afterwards to believe in Him — for His Church — that they might be and remain one as He and the Father are one (John 17:20-23); and
• He had already warned them that "every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Matthew 12:25).

Unity References by St. Paul.
• Schism and disunion he brands as crimes to be classed with murder and debauchery, and declares that those guilty of "dissensions" and "sects" shall not obtain the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21).
• Hearing of the schisms among the Corinthians, he asked impatiently: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13).
• And in the same Epistle he describes the Church as one body with many members distinct among themselves, but one with Christ their head: "For in one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free" (1 Corinthians 12:13).
• To show the intimate union of the members of the Church with the one God, he asks: "The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).
• Again in his Epistle to the Ephesians he teaches the same doctrine, and exhorts them to be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace", and he reminds them that there is but "one body and one spirit-one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:3-6).
• Already, in one of his very first Epistles, he had warned the faithful of Galatia that if anybody, even an angel from heaven, should preach unto them any other Gospel than that which he had preached, "let him be anathema" (Galatians 1:8).
• CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unity (As a Mark of the Church) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm)

JoeT

One Church or one church in Unity is the first of four marks of the Church i.e. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. What it’s not is a ordered military unit that marches in step with everybody expressing themselves the same, or holding identical understanding of Scripture. In fact, a Catholic is free to interpret the vast marjority of Scripture in any reasonable fashion he wants.

The True Church is marked with an internal and external spirit of unity. It is united with Christ and each of its members in its doctrine, reception of the sacraments, and obedience to its authority. It is not the duty of the Catholic to adhere ‘religiously’ out of fear, but rather to conforming both reason and the heart to the will of God and thereby the will of the Church. Unity is adherence to an objective and absolute truth revealed by God.

We find this unity in Scripture and tradition. The following are scriptural evidence of Unity.


• Speaking of His Church, the Saviour called it a kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God (Matthew 13:24, 31, 33; Luke 13:18; John 18:36);
• He compared it to a city the keys of which were entrusted to the Apostles (Matthew 5:14; 16:19),
• to a sheepfold to which all His sheep must come and be united under one shepherd (John 10:7-17);
• to a vine and its branches,
• to a house built upon a rock against which not even the powers of hell should ever prevail (Matthew 16:18).
• Moreover, the Saviour, just before He suffered, prayed for His disciples, for those who were afterwards to believe in Him — for His Church — that they might be and remain one as He and the Father are one (John 17:20-23); and
• He had already warned them that "every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Matthew 12:25).

Unity References by St. Paul.
• Schism and disunion he brands as crimes to be classed with murder and debauchery, and declares that those guilty of "dissensions" and "sects" shall not obtain the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21).
• Hearing of the schisms among the Corinthians, he asked impatiently: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13).
• And in the same Epistle he describes the Church as one body with many members distinct among themselves, but one with Christ their head: "For in one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free" (1 Corinthians 12:13).
• To show the intimate union of the members of the Church with the one God, he asks: "The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).
• Again in his Epistle to the Ephesians he teaches the same doctrine, and exhorts them to be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace", and he reminds them that there is but "one body and one spirit-one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:3-6).
• Already, in one of his very first Epistles, he had warned the faithful of Galatia that if anybody, even an angel from heaven, should preach unto them any other Gospel than that which he had preached, "let him be anathema" (Galatians 1:8).
• CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unity (As a Mark of the Church) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm)

JoeT

Lots of good Scripture here.

So why has the RC departed from the pattern and practices clearly established by Peter, Paul, John, James and the rest of that first Church during its earliest years?

You accuse us of being divisive, but what we recognize as "Church" is much closer to the original than the one you support.

You accuse us of being divisive, but what we recognize as "Church" is much closer to the original than the one you support.

Is it? I don't think so.

I ran across this after ClassyT's comment. When we look at these verses together it is easier to see how Luke explained the relationship between Christ, His Church, Peter and Paul. We know from Acts 9 that Paul was slaughtering Christians and had asked to go to Damascus in hopes catching the big fishes; "And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord (Acts 9: 1). Yet after Paul's visitation, falling to the ground he hears Jesus ask, “why do you persecute ME.” (Cf. Acts 9:4) Wasn't Paul chasing after dem rascally Apostles? He wasn't chasing out after Jesus – as far as Paul was concerned Jesus was dead and buried. You can imagine how he wondered who this aberration was, “Who art thou, Lord? And he said to me: I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” (Act 22:8). How can you persecute a dead man? How can Paul be guilty of persecuting Jesus of Nazareth who is dead? Why would Paul want to persecute a dead Jew? It's kind of pointless to persecute a dead man, isn't it?

Maybe Christ meant, “Why are you persecuting my Church”;now that would make good sense. And we're all about good sense aren't we? But, he didn't say that he said, 'why persecute ME'. Why indeed?

Catholics hear it clearly, Christ was saying since the Church and I are one, why persecute her. Jesus and the Church are like bridegroom and bride, One faith, One body, in Jesus' flesh and blood i.e. the Eucharist.

JoeT

Lots of good Scripture here.

So why has the RC departed from the pattern and practices clearly established by Peter, Paul, John, James and the rest of that first Church during its earliest years?

You accuse us of being divisive, but what we recognize as "Church" is much closer to the original than the one you support.

Hey, Guys, I'd like to give you a thought on authority debate particularly the supremacy of Peter. If Peter was to be the leader of the whole Church why did Jesus personally appoint Paul as apostle to the gentiles. He didn't have Peter do it. Could it be that Peter wasn't getting the job done but sitting on his blessed assurance in Jerusalem or that he was a little too jewish as indicated by his actions in Antioch. Or could it be that the model is that no man is head of the Church on Earth but Christ alone

We see in Paul a fresh beginning therefore indicating that Jesus didn't hold to a single stream but was looking to the future of different churches in different places. Apparently Peter's leadership then as now was not sufficient to get the job done

Hey, Guys, I'd like to give you a thought on authority debate particularly the supremacy of Peter. If Peter was to be the leader of the whole Church why did Jesus personally appoint Paul as apostle to the gentiles. He didn't have Peter do it. Could it be that Peter wasn't getting the job done but sitting on his blessed assurance in Jerusalem or that he was a little too jewish as indicated by his actions in Antioch. Or could it be that the model is that no man is head of the Church on Earth but Christ alone

We see in Paul a fresh beginning therefore indicating that Jesus didn't hold to a single stream but was looking to the future of different churches in different places. Apparently Peter's leadership then as now was not sufficient to get the job done

I won't go so far as to say that Peter wasn't getting the job done... for the Lord knows everything and wouldn't have appointed him the leader and then change his mind. I just don't think Peter WAS EVER to be the apostle to the gentiles nor have the position that Paul had... but I love to read about Peter. I can certainly relate to him and his impulsive behavior. He was and is special to the Lord and certainly has his rightful place in the Kingdom. He just wasn't the first POPE... sorry Joe777. The Lord Jesus never intended for anyone to take that position. We are all just servants and ministers of Christ. No one is more holy than anyone else.. save the Lord himself.

There is none righteous... no not one. For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. We ALL need to be saved from our sinful nature... including Mary the mother of our Lord. And just because men exalt MAN... be it the Pope, or any apostle of the Lord... doesn't make it right. There is no verse in the BIBLE that says we are to exalt anyone but the Lord Jesus himself. However if you happen to find anything in the NT... that says otherwise, please let me know. ( I'm speaking to anyone who thinks Roman Catholics are the true and one church.) and I also mean no disrespect.. I'm just saying... give me the verse in the NT. Mathew through Revelation. Or better yet any of the 66 books of the Bible.

The Lord Jesus never intended for anyone to take that position. We are all just servents and ministers of Christ. No one is more holy than anyone else..save the Lord himself.
.

Agree ClassyT, and there is scripture that documents Peter saying there is no other name then Christ Jesus that is the stone which was set at nought of the builders.


Act 4:8-10 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Act 4:11-12 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Christ will always be forever and ever the Rock, and REFER (1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls)

I won't go so far as to say that Peter wasn't getting the job done...for the Lord knows everything and wouldn't have appointed him the leader and then change his mind. I just don't think Peter WAS EVER to be the apostle to the gentiles nor have the position that Paul had.....but I love to read about Peter. I can certainly relate to him and his impulsive behavior. He was and is special to the Lord and certainly has his rightful place in the Kingdom. He just wasn't the first POPE....sorry Joe777. The Lord Jesus never intended for anyone to take that position. We are all just servants and ministers of Christ. No one is more holy than anyone else..save the Lord himself.

There is none righteous...no not one. For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. We ALL need to be saved from our sinful nature...including Mary the mother of our Lord. And just because men exalt MAN....be it the Pope, or any apostle of the Lord...doesn't make it right. There is no verse in the BIBLE that says we are to exalt anyone but the Lord Jesus himself. However if you happen to find anything in the NT.....that says otherwise, please let me know. ( I'm speaking to anyone who thinks Roman Catholics are the true and one church.) and i also mean no disrespect..i'm just saying ...give me the verse in the NT. Mathew thru Revelation. or better yet any of the 66 books of the Bible.

The sad part is that the RCC doesn't appear to have read the book of Revelation. There you find seven Churches each one different and the Lord doesn't say you guys need to get together under the headship of Peter, or one of his successors, Peter being dead by this time, he addresses the uniqueness of each one and their short comings and among them is very clearly what is now the RCC. It's what Jesus didn't say that gives us the clue, he didn't say that anyone of them was outside of Christ, but that they each needed to maintain focus on what is important.:)

classyT & sndbay I agree, and thank you.

Maggie 3

Joe,
You have been very clear and easy to understand.
I wish that when I was on the road to Rome I have someone who could do as well as you do with that. It took me quite sometime to get good clear understanding.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Catholics hear it clearly, Christ was saying since the Church and I are one, why persecute her. Jesus and the Church are like bridegroom and bride, One faith, One body, in Jesus' flesh and blood i.e. the Eucharist.

JoeT

Joe,

Chirst is one with each and every member, and there are many members within the church (Romans 12:5)

1 Corinthains 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.



There is no one church or no one man, that can place themselves above another. This was told of in parable. And we can compare why, and watch for the warning of a red flag
(Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others)

The parable goes as written and I pray that all can understand who was justified, The Pharisee or the publican?
Luke 18:10-20 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

The sad part is that the RCC doesn't appear to have read the book of Revelation. There you find seven Churches each one different and the Lord doesn't say you guys need to get together under the headship of Peter, or one of his successors, Peter being dead by this time, he addresses the uniqueness of each one and their short comings and among them is very clearly what is now the RCC. It's what Jesus didn't say that gives us the clue, he didn't say that anyone of them was outside of Christ, but that they each needed to maintain focus on what is important.:)

What tends to be misunderstood is that Christ did not come to give peace, because he dealt with what is a division of right and wrong. What is taking place today has been so for years and years. We are called to salvation, and told to follow the will of God. And the choice is in whom you choose to follow. Christ made it perfectly clear the path that should be followed. And as scripture tells us, we live by the WORD of GOD.
REFER: (Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division)

And I would agree Paraclete, it doesn't appear that the Catholic's recognizes there are seven churches in which the Revelation of Christ was revealed to us by what John was shown. If we were to examine what each church teaches, we then are able to understand which 2 were found to be favorable in the eyes of God.

Maggie 3: do you really agree with disrespecting the clergy when they wear a Roman collar? I knew we didn't often agree, but surly you don't agree with this? Have I misjudged you?

JoeT

I would say Joe, it is best you not judge Maggie or anyone else for that matter.

And I trust the point would be, that what we may see in any man or woman that do wear garments to identify they are from a church, can also be used in a deceptve plot. The Roman collar does not represent purity or any level of esteem above other men or woman. If it were, they just might choke on that collar.

REFER: The clerical collar is a fairly modern invention (the detachable collar itself is supposed to have been invented in 1827), although the "collarino" may date as far back as the 17th century. The Church of England's Enquiry Centre reports (citing the Glasgow Herald of December 6, 1894) that the practice of Anglican clergy wearing a detachable clerical collar was invented by a Rev Dr Donald McLeod[1] and became more popular through the Oxford Movement. The clerical collar has no particular religious meaning apart from identifying the person wearing it as a member of the clergy.

One Church or one church in Unity is the first of four marks of the Church i.e. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. What it’s not is a ordered military unit that marches in step with everybody expressing themselves the same, or holding identical understanding of Scripture. In fact, a Catholic is free to interpret the vast marjority of Scripture in any reasonable fashion he wants.

The True Church is marked with an internal and external spirit of unity. It is united with Christ and each of its members in its doctrine, reception of the sacraments, and obedience to its authority. It is not the duty of the Catholic to adhere ‘religiously’ out of fear, but rather to conforming both reason and the heart to the will of God and thereby the will of the Church. Unity is adherence to an objective and absolute truth revealed by God.

That's all great Joe but it doesn't answer my question, how in God's name can the church be "one" if you consider us defective? The RCC acknowledges we are an "ecclesiastical community," or just "separated brethren," that we have "many elements of sanctification and of truth," we're just a little "defective." How can we be "one" if the RCC condescends toward us in that fashion? We can't be "one" if you brush us off, i.e. sneer down your nose at us, as "defective."

Oh, and I'm still waiting for a clear explanation as to how Peter is the only one who could possibly have given Christ that answer.

Yet after Paul's visitation, falling to the ground he hears Jesus ask, “why do you persecute ME.” (Cf. Acts 9:4) Wasn’t Paul chasing after dem rascally Apostles? He wasn’t chasing out after Jesus – as far as Paul was concerned Jesus was dead and buried. You can imagine how he wondered who this aberration was, “Who art thou, Lord? And he said to me: I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” (Act 22:8). How can you persecute a dead man? How can Paul be guilty of persecuting Jesus of Nazareth who is dead? Why would Paul want to persecute a dead Jew? It’s kind of pointless to persecute a dead man, isn’t it?

Maybe Christ meant, “Why are you persecuting my Church”;now that would make good sense....

Why would we care to interpret such a clear passage any other way? If a risen, living, Jesus Christ spoke to Paul asking why are you persecuting "me," Paul's response is “Who art thou, Lord? " Jesus' response is "I am Jesus of Nazareth," and Paul goes on to preach the rest of his life of a risen Savior who lives, why would we interpret that to mean anything other than what it says?

That's all great Joe but it doesn't answer my question, how in God's name can the church be "one" if you consider us defective? The RCC acknowledges we are an "ecclesiastical community," or just "separated brethren," that we have "many elements of sanctification and of truth," we're just a little "defective." How can we be "one" if the RCC condescends toward us in that fashion? We can't be "one" if you brush us off, i.e. sneer down your nose at us, as "defective."

Oh, and I'm still waiting for a clear explanation as to how Peter is the only one who could possibly have given Christ that answer.

Joe is very hung up on the phrase One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic without realising that the word catholic is not capitalised in the Creed and this phrase is itself a fabrication of the Church. This became doctrine in the Creed of Constantinople in 381, In some languages, for example, German, the Latin "catholica" was traditionally translated as "christian" before the Reformation.

Joe is very hung up on the phrase One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic without realising that the word catholic is not capitalised in the Creed and this phrase is itself a fabrication of the Church. This became doctrine in the Creed of Constantinople in 381, In some languages, for example, German, the Latin "catholica" was traditionally translated as "christian" before the Reformation.

Magnifying a half truth into a whole only fools the user into believing the proposition is truer. Even still, as a matter of convenience some find it profitable to 'tweak' the meaning of phases and words, as you've done here with 'Catholic', to arrive at some truth more to your predilections. While not being an expert of etymology it's clear that most scholars would agree the word 'Catholic' comes from the Greek katholou; meaning 'throughout the whole' or more succinctly 'universal'. The word was used by pre-Christian Greek as it was with the early Church. Justin Martyr (circa 165 AD) used it to refer to the 'general' resurrection or the catholic resurrection (St. Justin Martyr, "De resurrect.", vii sqq Dialogue with Trypho 81 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm)); Teretullian, “the catholic goodness of God”; Ireneaus, “the four catholic winds”.

We know that at least one German some 489 years ago had a notorious ignorance of “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.” Given his rendering, the argument that the pre-schismatic rendering was to mean 'Christian' seems a bit trivial. This is because when Catholic is used in the phase “the Catholic Church”, (in Greek, he katholike ekkesia) we find a 'mia mone' implied (an implication of a “one and only Church” ). This is clearly seen in St. Clement's Stomata as early as the mid-second century writing in defense of the faith against heretics:

“From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God's purpose are just, are enrolled. For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.

Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone (sic), collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith— which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord— those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous." (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Stromata, VII, xvii) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02107.htm)(the emphasis is mine)

JoeT

In the OP, Rachie speaks of losing faith. Here is the cure for that condition.

Rom 10:17
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
(KJV)

My advice to you is STUDY the Word of God, more than a cursory reading, and see what the Church was when Jesus established it.

Disregard all partisian arguments, ask the Holy Spirit to guide you and the promise is:

John 16:13-14
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
(KJV)

If you will follow this advice you will NOT lose your faith, in fact you may find it for the first time.

You have my prayers.

JoeT , I have high respect for the Catholic Church. I know that you who are Catholic
Love the Lord and are very dedicated to your beliefs. God loves you and all who try
To follow Him. I believe we make a mistake if we think that the church, any church,
Has the authority to decide what is right and what is wrong. The true church is made
Up of believers in Jesus Christ- what scipture calls the "body of christ". They are to be
"lights in the world". And are going to be lights in a dark world, we need to be careful to identify with the "person of Jesus Christ" and to recognize, not the church but the "Word of God" as our authority. I love all my catholic friends and there deep faith. I go to a
Church that teaches the word of God, the bible, and we follow Jesus. I believe with all
My heart what the bible says to me. Each of us makes up in our heart and mind what is
Right for them, and what they believe shoud be what they follow. I pray and read the bible a lot and seek Gods guidance. I believe the Lord wants me to live in faith and
Do bible things, bible ways. God know our hearts and He is the judge.

Love and Blessing, Maggie3

sndbay,
We are not here to judge one another and the 7 churches paraclete mentioned were all under The Church that was founded by Jesus for the were started by the apostles.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

That's all great Joe but it doesn't answer my question, how in God's name can the church be "one" if you consider us defective? The RCC acknowledges we are an "ecclesiastical community," or just "separated brethren," that we have "many elements of sanctification and of truth," we're just a little "defective.

I don't know. If you're interested I would suggest looking at Vatican II's Decree on Ecumrnism - Unitatis Redintegratio (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html) .


“How can we be "one" if the RCC condescends toward us in that fashion? We can't be "one" if you brush us off, i.e. sneer down your nose at us, as "defective."
I explained in an earlier post, seethe following link it might make it clearer. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unity (As a Mark of the Church) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm)


Oh, and I'm still waiting for a clear explanation as to how Peter is the only one who could possibly have given Christ that answer.

I explained in an earlier post, but look into this link. It explains far better than any explanation I might come up with. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm)


Why would we care to interpret such a clear passage any other way? If a risen, living, Jesus Christ spoke to Paul asking why are you persecuting "me," Paul's response is “Who art thou, Lord? " Jesus' response is "I am Jesus of Nazareth," and Paul goes on to preach the rest of his life of a risen Savior who lives, why would we interpret that to mean anything other than what it says?

It's not Paul's response that's of importance, rather its Christ's question to Paul; “why do you persecute me.”

As I tried to explain in a previous post, Acts relates a story of Paul's miraculous vision. In order for the story to make any sense you have to understand that there is a mia mone Catholic Church (that is one and only Catholic Church). This Church was created by Christ, commissioned by Christ, sent out to teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Cf. Matt 28:20). Without one and only one Church the vision on the road to Damascus would be meaningless. It requires at least understanding that there is existing corporate ecclesiastical body, a society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ .

We're told in Acts of Paul's fervent zeal to eradicate any existing resemblance of a following after what he took to be Christ's death. And in Paul's mind he was dead and gone – a devout Jew can't believe otherwise – even to this day. Paul was an obsessed dragon who had taken on the cruel oppression of Christ's remnant following. This dragon was “…breathing … slaughter against the disciples.” As a result when “a light from heaven shined round about him” Paul had no idea who, or for that matter what, this apparition was. Hence “Who art thou, Lord?” is uttered, likely in fear.

The apparition responded “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest” (Acts 22:8). Christ the man was far beyond persecution. Arius would say that Christ wasn't the third person in the Trinity; therefore He was dead and no threat Paul. We know Arius is wrong; Christ ascended into heaven, where his keeps to his promise to protect His Church, a Church where not even the” gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, a supernaturally connected to Christ through the sacraments (Cf. John 15:5). The individual is integral part of this body (Cf. John 15:7-12) held together and moved as single body as if by ligaments and Joints (Cf. John 15:16; Colossians 2:19). This Church has one head, Christ; and one body in service to Christ. It's through the Church that one develops a likeness of Christ (Cf. John 15:13-15), a holiness. It's a virtuous union leading to the fullness of Christ's salvation (Cf. Ephesians 1:23) It's only in this union that we become whole (Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:12, 13). This is the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, “For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:17).

Thus, Christ's statement is meaningless when He asks Paul why do you persecute; unless Christ is talking about his Mystical body. Why didn't the apparition say, why do you persecute my followers? Or, why didn't He ask why do you persecute Peter's Church? Paul knew nothing of the early Church, but he knew where the Apostles were; but, Paul was still on the road to Damascus in his effort to find the Apostles – in the story he's not there yet. Paul didn't hang Jesus on the Cross that distinction goes to the Sanhedrin; therefore Paul isn't guilty of harming Christ directly – so why is the apparition complaining of persecution? But, we do know that two years after the ascension that Paul is seen at Stephen's stoning (Cf. Acts 7:58; 8:1), so Paul was guilty of persecuting the Church. Paul persecuted the Church for at least four years after Christ's Crucifixion (Cf. Acts 8:1-3; Phil 3:6 – not Christ. Why then would Christ accuse Paul of persecuting Him? Unless, unless, the apparition was referring to the persecution of His Mystical Body, His Church. In order to persecute a body – it has to exist. This is just one example of why we know that there is One Body, One Faith in Christ, One Church, with One Head of that Church, Jesus Christ.


JoeT

JoeT.
Thanks for the excellent explanation concerning the road to Damascus and Saul (who became Paul).
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I don’t know. If you’re interested I would suggest looking at Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumrnism - Unitatis Redintegratio (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html) .


I explained in an earlier post, seethe following link it might make it clearer. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Unity (As a Mark of the Church) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm)



I explained in an earlier post, but look into this link. It explains far better than any explanation I might come up with. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm)



It’s not Paul’s response that’s of importance, rather its Christ’s question to Paul; “why do you persecute me.”

As I tried to explain in a previous post, Acts relates a story of Paul’s miraculous vision. In order for the story to make any sense you have to understand that there is a mia mone Catholic Church (that is one and only Catholic Church). This Church was created by Christ, commissioned by Christ, sent out to teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Cf. Matt 28:20). Without one and only one Church the vision on the road to Damascus would be meaningless. It requires at least understanding that there is existing corporate ecclesiastical body, a society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ .

We’re told in Acts of Paul’s fervent zeal to eradicate any existing resemblance of a following after what he took to be Christ’s death. And in Paul’s mind he was dead and gone – a devout Jew can’t believe otherwise – even to this day. Paul was an obsessed dragon who had taken on the cruel oppression of Christ’s remnant following. This dragon was “…breathing … slaughter against the disciples.” As a result when “a light from heaven shined round about him” Paul had no idea who, or for that matter what, this apparition was. Hence “Who art thou, Lord?” is uttered, likely in fear.

The apparition responded “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest” (Acts 22:8). Christ the man was far beyond persecution. Arius would say that Christ wasn’t the third person in the Trinity; therefore He was dead and no threat Paul. We know Arius is wrong; Christ ascended into heaven, where his keeps to his promise to protect His Church, a Church where not even the” gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, a supernaturally connected to Christ through the sacraments (Cf. John 15:5). The individual is integral part of this body (Cf. John 15:7-12) held together and moved as single body as if by ligaments and Joints (Cf. John 15:16; Colossians 2:19). This Church has one head, Christ; and one body in service to Christ. It’s through the Church that one develops a likeness of Christ (Cf. John 15:13-15), a holiness. It’s a virtuous union leading to the fullness of Christ’s salvation (Cf. Ephesians 1:23) It’s only in this union that we become whole (Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:12, 13). This is the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, “For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:17).

Thus, Christ’s statement is meaningless when He asks Paul why do you persecute; unless Christ is talking about his Mystical body. Why didn’t the apparition say, why do you persecute my followers? Or, why didn’t He ask why do you persecute Peter‘s Church? Paul knew nothing of the early Church, but he knew where the Apostles were; but, Paul was still on the road to Damascus in his effort to find the Apostles – in the story he’s not there yet. Paul didn’t hang Jesus on the Cross that distinction goes to the Sanhedrin; therefore Paul isn’t guilty of harming Christ directly – so why is the apparition complaining of persecution? But, we do know that two years after the ascension that Paul is seen at Stephen’s stoning (Cf. Acts 7:58; 8:1), so Paul was guilty of persecuting the Church. Paul persecuted the Church for at least four years after Christ’s Crucifixion (Cf. Acts 8:1-3; Phil 3:6 – not Christ. Why then would Christ accuse Paul of persecuting Him? Unless, unless, the apparition was referring to the persecution of His Mystical Body, His Church. In order to persecute a body – it has to exist. This is just one example of why we know that there is One Body, One Faith in Christ, One Church, with One Head of that Church, Jesus Christ.


JoeT

Joseph!

First, what Paul encountered was NOT a "aparition" but the LORD JESUS CHRIST... GLORIFIED! Christ asked him why he persecuted HIM.. because when you persecute a believer in Christ... you persecute HIM directly. Christ is IN US and we are IN HIM. These are spiritual truths that are difficult to understand but none the less TRUE. I feel certain you would agree with me... so far)

Anyone who accpeted the Lord Jesus before Pauls' ministry was certainly part of the
Church. And it is INDEED ONE body, One Faith and ONE CHURCH. ( not CATHOLIC though) BUT that doesn't mean that they fully comprehended GRACE. The Lord Jesus chose to reveal the mystery of the church and the period of GRACE to the Apostle Paul. (This is what the BIBLE says... not me.) The early Jewish believers had no comprehension of Grace and grafting in Gentiles because the Lord hadn't revealed them yet. However this doesn't make them any less part of the body of Christ.

You err when you think the ONE church is catholic. It is and always will be EVERY person who puts his faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and his finished work on the cross. THAT is the ONE body, that is the ONE faith, that is the one CHURCH! It just isn't a denomination... no way, no how. It is all about JESUS.

sndbay,
We are not here to judge one another and the 7 churches paraclete mentioned were all under The Church that was founded by Jesus for the were started by the apostles.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fredrick,
HMMM? How can the letters to the 7 churches be UNDER the church when they ARE the church.

The problem here I think is the church is NOT a organization, or a denomination. It is every believer in Christ. The period of Grace began when the Lord rose from the dead. The body of Christ or the "church" wasn't started by the apostles. It began with the death burial and resurrection and everyone who puts their faith and trust in HIM is automatically placed in Christ... and THIS is the BODY of Christ or the church.


The letters the Lord wrote to the 7 churches were written to actual assemblies. However they represent different era's during the peirod of Grace in which we now live. I believe you will find our time in the LAST letter.

Joe, of course Saul persecuted the church, that's clear. What's also clear is Paul's recognition of Him as "Lord." It was a personal appearance by Christ and a personal response by Paul. That is the essence of Christianity, and the exact kind of supernatural personal revelation and recognition you only attribute to Peter. You yourself say Paul knew nothing of the church, yet somehow in RCC thinking Paul’s conversion must have been through “His Mystical Body” and not a personal encounter with the Lord Himself. You’re all about making good sense yet that makes no sense whatsoever.

The problem I have with this doctrine of yours is it is based on a lot of assumptions, in practice it elevates the church above its Head and it’s divisive. The RCC’s “far more exacting” notion of unity is legalistic and condescending. Yet, Paul asked in Romans 14, who are you to judge another’s faith? You say we’re “deficient.” Paul said God is able to make us stand, you say “it is only through Christ's Catholic Church.” Well which is it?

The problem I have with this doctrine of yours is it is based on a lot of assumptions, in practice it elevates the church above its Head and it's divisive. The RCC's “far more exacting” notion of unity is legalistic and condescending.

How so? How does it elevate the Church above its Head? And how is it more exacting? Also, how is it legalistic? Is there not a Divine and natural Truth? Truth is always 'exacting'. How many Divine Truths do you reckon there are? We know that God and Truth are convertible; St. Thomas says, “Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth. “ Summa Prima Q, 15 a5” Consequently we can say that there is an absolute infallible truth. If we hold that Truth is absolute then there can be only ONE absolute TRUTH.

Thus, we cannot simply hold to a truth that 'feels' good, or that supports our life style, or that tickles our predilections. That is unless it conforms to God's Truth. There can be no commonality in the various Christian faiths as a matter of logic; in any two competing faiths, one must be True and the other must be false; otherwise they both must be wrong. The reason should be obvious; truth resides in God, and what resides in God has definitive meaning. Since the Holy Scriptures are inspired by God then for each us there can be only One Truth, One Word. It's an obscenity to believe Scripture can have 'different meaning for different folks'. The Holy Spirit inspires men to One True faith.


Yet, Paul asked in Romans 14, who are you to judge another's faith? You say we're “deficient.” Paul said God is able to make us stand, you say “it is only through Christ's Catholic Church.” Well which is it?

There has been an implication running through the better part of the non-Catholic posts which seem to imply that I think that everybody non-Roman Catholic are somehow 'deficient', (to use your words). I just want to make sure you understand that I've never implied such a thing, nor intended to imply it. Pointing to Scriptural truth, or a Divine truth, or a Traditional truth isn't in anyway meant to as demeaning.

JoeT

How so? How does it elevate the Church above its Head?

Have you not paid attention to the comments here? Those of us who have disagreed with your "one and only church" notion (repeated ad nauseum in one way or another) only recognize one body of believers, across denominational lines, with Christ at the head of the body, period. The RCC as you present it appears more devoted to maintaining that exclusivity than attaining unity in the faith.


And how is it more exacting?

Those are words from your "unity" article.


Also, how is it legalistic?

If we don't ascribe to your notion of unity, if we don't conform to your standards, if in any way we don't subject ourselves to the authority and teaching of the RCC, we are "deficient." How is that not legalistic?


Thus, we cannot simply hold to what ‘feels’ good, or what supports our life style, or what tickles our predilections. As truth, unless it conforms to the Truth. There can be no commonality in the various Christian faiths as a matter of logic; in any two competing faiths, one must be is True and the other must be false or they both must be wrong.

This is where logic gets thrown out the window, as your own argument in Unitatis Redintegratio recognizes "some" of our truth but not all. We have "some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments," but not all.

We "use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion"which "can truly engender a life of grace" and "must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation." BUT, we are still "deficient in some respects" but still hold some "significance and importance in the mystery of salvation."

Do we have some truth or all truth? If we only have some truth then we must be false, right? What good is "some significance" in the grand scheme of divine truth? Does divine truth have levels of significance?


There has been an implication running through the better part of the non-Catholic posts which seem to imply that I think that everybody non-Roman Catholic are somehow 'deficient', (to use your words). I just want to make sure you understand that I’ve never implied such a thing, nor intended to imply it. Pointing to Scriptural truth, or a Divine truth, or a Traditional truth isn’t in anyway meant to as demeaning.

That's just it Joe, "deficient" is not my word. The RCC said it, not me. I don't mean to be contentious, Joe, I love and appreciate my Catholic brethren. If one loves their family in Christ they don't try to exclude them from the family (one and only Church) and they don't consider them "deficient."

Have you not paid attention to the comments here? Those of us who have disagreed with your "one and only church" notion (repeated ad nauseum in one way or another) only recognize one body of believers, across denominational lines, with Christ at the head of the body, period.

It's not MY “One and only Church,” the Church is Christ's.

Each Catholic should hold views of his salvation that conform to the Magisterium,the teaching office of the Church. It's always my practice to convey only that which I understand to properly reflect that of the Roman Catholic doctrine, if there has been a failure to do so it's my error.


The RCC as you present it appears more devoted to maintaining that exclusivity than attaining unity in the faith.

Quite the contrary, the Church is open to everyone, but at the same time she 'religiously' guards it's teachings she received from Christ. The Magisterium is charged with teaching as it had learned from the Apostles.

I n regard to One Church, this is not some new doctrine, but one held since it was taught by Christ. The introductory paragraphs of Unitatis Redintegratio are quite clear, there's not much room for misunderstanding:


” The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only.

“Is Christ divided” Paul asks. As I've logically shown, why would Christ commission multiple faiths, doctrine, and beliefs in an absolute Truth? “Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. (Eph. 4, 3-5). Right reasoning can't be achieved maintaining sovereignty over those revealed cosmic truths as some maintain. This is effectively forming God in the proclivity of our own reasoning, as opposed to God forming His will in a right reasoned conscience. Right reasoning requires man need God, allowing Him to act from from the interior. Such right reasoning is directly opposed to that which emanates from our own predetermined appetite.



However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.


Is the Vatican II document wrong, do not some men claim to be inheritors Unitatis Redintegratio continues on to say that all are invited to the ecumenical movement who:



” …invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God's Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.


Continuing Rome recognizes certain elements of various faiths;



…Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.


The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.


It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.



This is where logic gets thrown out the window, as your own argument in Unitatis Redintegratio recognizes "some" of our truth but not all. We have "some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments," but not all.


Catholics recognize that God's Truths are absolute and universal. Consequently, how and where God reveals truth, it remains a universally truth. It's true, all these essential gifts are found the world over, but these Truths will always lead us to Christ and His Church.



Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ. (my emphases)



We "use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion "which "can truly engender a life of grace" and "must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation." BUT, we are still "deficient in some respects" but still hold some "significance and importance in the mystery of salvation."

And?



Do we have some truth or all truth? If we only have some truth then we must be false, right? What good is "some significance" in the grand scheme of divine truth? Does divine truth have levels of significance?


We have revealed Truth. It's a non-sequitur in the equation of truth to significance. It's through the grace of God that we are offered salvation; the fullness of that grace can only be realized in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ.



That's just it Joe, "deficient" is not my word. The RCC said it, not me. I don't mean to be contentious, Joe, I love and appreciate my Catholic brethren. If one loves their family in Christ they don't try to exclude them from the family (one and only Church) and they don't consider them "deficient."

The separated Churches are 'deficient' yet Christ still holds open a means of salvation through his grace. They are deficient in the sense that it's in the Church of Jesus Christ that we see a fullness of the efficacy of that grace. There isn't a single document I've cited thus far that 'excludes' anybody, but they all ask for love and obedience to God.

Separation from the communion with the Mystical Body of Christ is viewed as serious for a Catholic. Communion is rooted in our love of God. In Christ's commandment to Love God, “with thy whole heart.” But it doesn't end there; loving God is to voluntary resolve to reason rightly in God's will, Christ adds, “and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind.” I understand this to mean that to love God requires, the contemplative heart, the repentant soul, and the discipline of reason resulting in 'moral perfection'. We see that reason is "to love God above all things is to insure the sanctity of our whole life" (Le Camus, "Vie de Notre-Seigneur Jesus-Christ", III, 81).


Allow me to ask a few questions of you. How is one religion as good as another; can you reason this out for me?

JoeT

Classy, Sorry but the Catholic church is the only "One, Holy, Apostolic, Universal Church".
There may be other churches somewhat similar but that is the accurate description of the Roman Catholic Church and has been so for many centuries.
There is no other exactly like it.
I think each church has it's own description or at least most do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[QUOTE]It’s not MY “One and only Church,” the Church is Christ’s.

That's what we've been saying.


Quite the contrary, the Church is open to everyone, but at the same time she ‘religiously’ guards it’s teachings she received from Christ. The Magisterium is charged with teaching as it had learned from the Apostles.

It may be open to everyone but it dismisses all other denominations as "deficient."


I n regard to One Church, this is not some new doctrine, but one held since it was taught by Christ. The introductory paragraphs of Unitatis Redintegratio are quite clear, there’s not much room for misunderstanding:

No it is not a new doctrine and we don't disagree with the idea that there is only one church, we just disagree that this one church is encompassed only in the Roman Catholic Church.


“Is Christ divided” Paul asks. As I’ve logically shown, why would Christ commission multiple faiths, doctrine, and beliefs in an absolute Truth?

Who is "dividing" Christ? We're not, we recognize but one Christ, the Head of the church in all church bodies that adhere to the necessary elements of the faith. The RCC thinks we don't have all those necessary elements which is why we're considered "deficient." We on the other hand think the RCC has added elements nowhere supported in scripture.


“Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. (Eph. 4, 3-5).

Agreed, and which of these elements are we missing?


Catholics recognize that God’s Truths are absolute and universal. Consequently, how and where God reveals truth, it remains a universally truth. It’s true, all these essential gifts are found the world over, but these Truths will always lead us to Christ and His Church.

So though we have the "essential" truths it is only through and because of the RCC? If we hold to these "essential" truths we'll all eventually be led to the RCC?


We have revealed Truth. It’s a non-sequitur in the equation of truth to significance. It’s through the grace of God that we are offered salvation; the fullness of that grace can only be realized in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ.

We don't have revealed truth?


The separated Churches are ‘deficient’ yet Christ still holds open a means of salvation through his grace. They are deficient in the sense that it’s in the Church of Jesus Christ that we see a fullness of the efficacy of that grace. There isn’t a single document I’ve cited thus far that ‘excludes’ anybody, but they all ask for love and obedience to God.

Back to my original point in this thread, you fail to see how your claim of the RCC as the "one and only church" is divisive. Unitatis Redintegratio states Catholics "must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren." My outlook is I take exception to anyone making the claim of being the "one and only church." My church has all of the "essential" elements of the faith. God does not withhold anything from us for not being subject to Rome.


Allow me to ask a few questions of you. How is one religion as good as another; can you reason this out for me?

Since I hold no such view I have no need to reason it out. I'm a Christian, you're a Christian, what else needs to be said?

[QUOTE=JoeT777;1956060] Since I hold no such view I have no need to reason it out. I'm a Christian, you're a Christian, what else needs to be said?

How do you define a ‘Christian’?

JoeT

In a nutshell, one who invokes the Triune God and confesses Jesus as Lord and Savior. And you?

In a nutshell, one who invokes the Triune God and confesses Jesus as Lord and Savior. And you?

Much the same.