[De Maria]

Run that by me again? We know virtually nothing about his childhood except for when he wandered off from the homeward-bound caravan. That hardly constitutes letting her "run his life."

Have you read that part of Scripture? Especially the part that says:
Luke 2
51And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

And between Cana and the cross, she vanishes from sight. How is she running his life?

Does that mean that you believe that Jesus forgot about her or abandoned her?

Are you joking? She didn't insist on anything, she merely mentioned that they were out of wine. And his reply is hardly an example of submission. Sure, he made wine from water, but it had virtually nothing to do with her comment. And there was most definitely no "insistence" on her part.

Your interpretation is an example of that which Scripture condemns:
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

You read Scripture according to the letter alone, whereas we read also the Spirit of the letter.

As such we see that Mary did not insist verbally. But quietly and confidently, confident that her Son would do her will, she turned to the servants and said:
John 2:
5His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

And you are right that Jesus sounded reluctant. It almost sounded as though he didn't want to begin his mission quite yet:
4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Therefore it is because she requested this miracle that he began his ministry.

For all we know, she was suggesting he run over to the local liquor store and buy more, or merely telling him about the situation. Anything else is reading into the text what isn't there.

You are under the impression that Mary didn't know that her Son is God?

Yeah, all I've done is raise three of them. Is this for real?

So? I've raised four. But I'm not talking about yours or mine. I'm talking about children who don't obey their moms and dads. There are a great many of them. And if you didn't know that, then you've only been around your own children and generalizing from them to the world. But all you have to do is go to a Public School in your area ANY TIME and odds are that you will find many unruly and disobedient children. Why do you think that children have to be scanned for weapons when they enter the school buildings?

"Honor" does not equal total or blind obedience.

Did I say it did?

"Honor" simply means giving proper respect. You're redefining a word to suit your theology, and that's not a valid approach to the Scriptures.

You're accusing me of doing something that I didn't do in order to make believe that you are making a valid argument. But what you are doing is using a logical fallacy. In this case, it is the straw man logical fallacy wherein you create a straw man argument which you can knock down and at the same time avoid engaging my real argument.

So the only options are either blind, total submission throughout his life, or disownment? Are you joking?

Are you? Because I never said that, so prove that I suggested any such notion or recant.

I honored and respected both my parents right up to the days of their deaths, but once I reached adulthood I followed my own path and they, like good parents, encouraged me to do so. If Mary actually gave Jesus the kind of ultimatum you're suggesting, then she was the worst mother in history. You're not doing your case any good with this kind of either/or mentality.

It is you who is not doing your case any good by making these fallacious arguments. First prove that I said any such thing and then I will address your error.

As for Jesus obeying Mary and making the first public miracle of his mission at her request, it is a matter of record. Read John 2.

[dwashbur]

Have you read that part of Scripture? Especially the part that says:
Luke 2
51And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Yes, I have. What part of "he was a child" doesn't register? As a human child, of course he was subject to his PARENTS, not just his mother. But even that had its limits, as shown by the previous verses:

After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

Clearly they considered this an act of disobedience, or at least negligent. So even being "obedient" had limits for him. What do you do with that fact?

Does that mean that you believe that Jesus forgot about her or abandoned her?

Where did I ever even imply such a thing? You're pulling stuff out of the ether. What I said, if you had bothered to read it, is that when he grew up he moved away from his parents and started his own life, like all children who grow up should do. We know he didn't forget her, duh, because I already mentioned his placing her in John's care when he was on the cross. So this is a red herring at best.

Your interpretation is an example of that which Scripture condemns:
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

You read Scripture according to the letter alone, whereas we read also the Spirit of the letter.

Don't make me laugh. First, that quote is so out of context it's ridiculous. Look at the surrounding text and see what Paul was really talking about before making such a ludicrous accusation. Second, even the spirit of the text has to be elicited from the actual words. In this case, the actual words simply aren't there.

As such we see that Mary did not insist verbally. But quietly and confidently, confident that her Son would do her will, she turned to the servants and said:
John 2:
5His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

And you are right that Jesus sounded reluctant. It almost sounded as though he didn't want to begin his mission quite yet:
4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Therefore it is because she requested this miracle that he began his ministry.

She didn't "request" anything. She suspected he might do something, according to her actual words. You keep reading more into the text than it will bear, and you justify such misuse of it with that artificial "spirit of the law" bit. It doesn't work. He performed his first miracle here because he chose to, not because of anything she said or did. Who knows? Maybe he gave her a knowing little smile when he said "my hour has not yet come," and that's why she told the servants to do whatever he told them. We don't know. But to try and claim, as you and some others have done, that this was an act of obedience to her, is pushing the limits of both the "letter" and the "spirit" beyond what each can hold. It's just not there. Get over it.

You are under the impression that Mary didn't know that her Son is God?

I never said such a thing, and really it has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. Yet another smokescreen.

So? I've raised four. But I'm not talking about yours or mine. I'm talking about children who don't obey their moms and dads. There are a great many of them. And if you didn't know that, then you've only been around your own children and generalizing from them to the world. But all you have to do is go to a Public School in your area ANY TIME and odds are that you will find many unruly and disobedient children. Why do you think that children have to be scanned for weapons when they enter the school buildings?

So, because some kids today are rebellious, that negates the entire principle that children obey their parents for all of human history. This is getting downright laughable. There were no metal scanners in first-century Judea, and the vast majority of kids then did obey their parents until they grew to adulthood and struck out on their own. This makes three blatant deflection attempts, and none of them work. Let's stick to the topic, shall we?

"Honor" does not equal total or blind obedience.

Did I say it did?

Yes, you did.

As a child I submitted to my parents, but like Jesus, when I became an adult I went my own way and was no longer under their authority.

Show me where Scripture says that Jesus did not honor Mary and you will show me where Jesus sinned and contradicted the will of the Father. Is that what you want to prove?

In so many words you said that if Jesus didn't submit to her authority and obey her throughout his entire life, he "did not honor" her and sinned. Do you want to retract that statement now?

You're accusing me of doing something that I didn't do in order to make believe that you are making a valid argument. But what you are doing is using a logical fallacy. In this case, it is the straw man logical fallacy wherein you create a straw man argument which you can knock down and at the same time avoid engaging my real argument.

No, I'm taking your words at face value. You, on the other hand, keep dragging irrelevant items out of left field and trying to deflect attention from the fact that your argument doesn't hold up. You said, in so many words, that either Jesus "permitted her to run His life" or he dishonored - and later you said "disowned" - her and committed a sin. That's not a straw man. That's your words.

So the only options are either blind, total submission throughout his life, or disownment? Are you joking?

Are you? Because I never said that, so prove that I suggested any such notion or recant.

See above. That's exactly what you said. Make up your mind.

It is you who is not doing your case any good by making these fallacious arguments. First prove that I said any such thing and then I will address your error.

I already did.

As for Jesus obeying Mary and making the first public miracle of his mission at her request, it is a matter of record. Read John 2.

I have read it, apparently in a lot more detail than you have. Once again, there is no act of obedience to anybody except his Father. You're welcome to read as much as you want to into the text, but that's not what it says. He chose when and where to do his miracles, and it had nothing to do with her. In fact, he gave her a gentle rebuke (the "woman" part was an address of respect that he used on several occasions with several women). You keep mangling the text with your pretexts, and then try to call it "the spirit" of the text. It still doesn't work.

[galveston]

Maybe more to the point of the original question, another question.

Why does a Christian need an image or any other physical item to "enhance" his/her worship?

Is not the Holy Spirit adequate all by Himself?

[TUT317]

Maybe more to the point of the original question, another question.

Why does a Christian need an image or any other physical item to "enhance" his/her worship?

Is not the Holy Spirit adequate all by Himself?

Good question Gal. From my point of view I blame Plato. Naturally, Plato predates Christianity but he has left us with many unanswered questions in relation to universals. Today it is nearly always referred to as,'the problem of universals'



In a dialogue discussion an argument is put forward between Socrates and a priest of Athens named Euthyphro. Socrates asks Euthyphro where he is going? The reply comes that he is off to the courthouse to give evidence against his father who is being tried for murder.

Socrates asks for the fully story and both he and Euthyphro come to the conclusion that the case is weak. Euthyphro says that he already knows this but he is still going to give evidence against his father. Naturally Socrates asks, why?

Euthyphro explains that it is the holy thing to do. Socrates subjects Euthyphro to some close questioning about the nature of holiness. Whenever, Euthyphro comes up with a definition of holiness Socrates shows him that his definition is inadequate.

In the end, Euthyphro gives up and claims that every time he puts words down, they get up and walk away.

One thing Plato is doing is highlighting the relationship between appearances and reality.
I guess we could generalize and say we need a' physical thing' or 'an image', not so much 'to enhance' our worship but to know that appearances and reality are closely linked in some way. The big problem is how are they linked?

Plato is not denying there is such a thing as holiness but is showing that 'physical' holiness is not the same as 'actual' holiness. Plato believes that there needs to be a mediating entity to link appearances to reality.

If Plato were alive today and he wanted to answer Galverston's question.. " Is not the Holy Spirit adequate all by Himself?' He might say, no- because the Holy Spirit provides us with a way of making sense of God and the physical world.

In John 14:16 I understand the Holy Spirit to have the role of our Counselor or "Mediator" in our lives.




Regards

Tut

[paraclete]

Maybe more to the point of the original question, another question.

Why does a Christian need an image or any other physical item to "enhance" his/her worship?

Is not the Holy Spirit adequate all by Himself?

Gal this assumes you are born again and spirit filled, that you know the Holy Spirit and are guided by him. It is a whole can of worms to open that up with a Catholic because as much as they may believe in Jesus they also believe in their religion..

It does us no good to argue around these areas of Catholic expression, Mary, statues, candles, prayer to the saints and other unscriptural expressions, they have a whole lot of twisted logic that justifies their position

[De Maria]

Yes, I have. What part of "he was a child" doesn't register?

I understand that He was a child then. Was He also a child at the wedding of Cana?

As a human child, of course he was subject to his PARENTS, not just his mother.

Did He submit and obey His Mother at the wedding of Cana? Was He an adult at that point or a child?

But even that had its limits, as shown by the previous verses:

You posted a verse but not a limitation. What limitation are you talking about? Show me specifically. Highlight it in the verse.

Clearly they considered this an act of disobedience, or at least negligent. So even being "obedient" had limits for him.

Who? Where does it say that they considered it disobedience? Where does it say that He was disobedient?

What do you do with that fact?

What fact? Are you trying to establish that Jesus was disobedient to His earthly parents? If so, then how is that NOT a sin against the Fourth Commandment to honor one's father and mother? And if Jesus sinned against that Commandment, how is it that He is like us in every way except sin?

Where did I ever even imply such a thing? You're pulling stuff out of the ether. What I said, if you had bothered to read it, is that when he grew up he moved away from his parents and started his own life, like all children who grow up should do. We know he didn't forget her, duh, because I already mentioned his placing her in John's care when he was on the cross. So this is a red herring at best.

On the contrary, you said:
And between Cana and the cross, she vanishes from sight.

Implying that since she was out of sight, she must be out of mind. That is, that since He couldn't see her, He didn't think about her.

You also asked:

How is she running his life?

This is your red herring. Because I didn't say that she ran His life after Cana, but that she ran his life up to Cana. And in fact, began His ministry at her bequest at the Wedding at Cana.

Don't make me laugh. First, that quote is so out of context it's ridiculous. Look at the surrounding text and see what Paul was really talking about before making such a ludicrous accusation.

You claim that my statement is false but you provide no actual support for your claim. You simply say it makes you laugh. That is a form of logical fallacy known as Appeal to the People or Argument by emotion. You never really address the argument. You just claim it is beneath your dignity and laugh it off.

The problem is this, the quote I provided is explicitly condemning your literal method of interpretation of the New Testament:
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Second, even the spirit of the text has to be elicited from the actual words. In this case, the actual words simply aren't there.

So, from the text of the Wedding at Cana, you don't understand that Jesus obeyed His Mother and brought about His first supernatural sign, miraculously making wine from water? What actual word is missing?

She didn't "request" anything.

I agree. She commanded in a very confident manner. She even walked away, confident that her son would do her will.

She suspected he might do something, according to her actual words. You keep reading more into the text than it will bear,

You do. Because nowhere does the text say "she suspected he might do something".

and you justify such misuse of it with that artificial "spirit of the law" bit.

You do. And you justify your misuse of it by setting aside a portion of Scripture which instructs you how to interpret Scripture.

It doesn't work.

True. Your method doesn't work.

He performed his first miracle here because he chose to, not because of anything she said or did.

Just so happens that He did exactly what she said He should.

Who knows?

Those who read Scripture and understand the spirit of the letter.

Maybe he gave her a knowing little smile when he said "my hour has not yet come," and that's why she told the servants to do whatever he told them. We don't know. But to try and claim, as you and some others have done, that this was an act of obedience to her, is pushing the limits of both the "letter" and the "spirit" beyond what each can hold. It's just not there. Get over it.

On the contrary, anyone who reads this without a prejudice against Mary will see that He was being perfectly obedient to His Mother.

I never said such a thing, and really it has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. Yet another smokescreen.

Why then would you believe that she was sending Him to the liquor store?

So, because some kids today are rebellious, that negates the entire principle that children obey their parents for all of human history.

More fallacious argument. Did I say that the principle of children obeying their parents was negated for all of human history? Or did I not admit that you and I raised obedient children?

Therefore, the point is that NOT ALL CHILDREN ARE OBEDIENT. Because you said:

Quote:
I don't see how that is any different from any other childhood.

Implying that all children are obedient.

This is getting downright laughable. There were no metal scanners in first-century Judea, and the vast majority of kids then did obey their parents until they grew to adulthood and struck out on their own.

Really? You took a poll? Or is it mentioned in Scripture somewhere? Please provide the source for this opinion of yours.

This makes three blatant deflection attempts, and none of them work.

All of them from you.

Let's stick to the topic, shall we?

Be my guest. I've been on topic throughout. It is you who are squirming under the weight of your fallacious arguments.

Yes, you did.

Then you should be able to quote me.

In so many words you said that if Jesus didn't submit to her authority and obey her throughout his entire life, he "did not honor" her and sinned. Do you want to retract that statement now?

In so many words? In other words, you read that into my statements. And besides, you have now changed your own accusation, from "Honor" does not equal total or blind obedience. to submit to her authority and obey her throughout his life.

So far, I have nothing to retract. It is you who is retracting your statements accompanied by a whole lot of bullia and smoke screens.

No, I'm taking your words at face value. You, on the other hand, keep dragging irrelevant items out of left field and trying to deflect attention from the fact that your argument doesn't hold up. You said, in so many words, that either Jesus "permitted her to run His life" or he dishonored - and later you said "disowned" - her and committed a sin. That's not a straw man. That's your words.

Again, you keep using the phrase, "in so many words". Essentially admitting that I never said what you accused me of saying. All you are doing is pulling words out of context and adding to them your false impressions.

My argument holds up. That is why you won't address it.

See above. That's exactly what you said. Make up your mind.

I did. And I proved that you are avoiding the argument.

I already did.

Neh.

I have read it, apparently in a lot more detail than you have. Once again, there is no act of obedience to anybody except his Father. You're welcome to read as much as you want to into the text, but that's not what it says. He chose when and where to do his miracles, and it had nothing to do with her. In fact, he gave her a gentle rebuke (the "woman" part was an address of respect that he used on several occasions with several women). You keep mangling the text with your pretexts, and then try to call it "the spirit" of the text. It still doesn't work.

He did what she wanted. That's obedience in anybody's book.

[De Maria]

Maybe more to the point of the original question, another question.

Why does a Christian need an image or any other physical item to "enhance" his/her worship?

I don't know. But I know it helps me. I also carry pictures of my mom and my family. The pictures help me to remember them and to focus on them when I'm far away.

In the same way, the icons and statuary of Jesus and the Saints helps me to focus on them.

I'm human. Go figger.

Is not the Holy Spirit adequate all by Himself?

I think He is. I believe it is He who inspires me to keep icons and statuary to remind me of my spiritual family. And I believe it is He who reminds me to keep pictures which remind me of my physical family.

Why would the existence of pictures and statuary make the Holy Spirit inadequate? Did not God the Father command the making of cherubim statues? Do you think He considered the Holy Spirit inadequate?

[De Maria]

Gal this assumes you are born again and spirit filled, that you know the Holy Spirit and are guided by him. It is a whole can of worms to open that up with a Catholic because as much as they may believe in Jesus they also believe in their religion..

It does us no good to argue around these areas of Catholic expression, Mary, statues, candles, prayer to the saints and other unscriptural expressions, they have a whole lot of twisted logic that justifies their position

It is quite the opposite. It is Protestants who have unbiblical and twisted logic to justify their position. Lets take a very simple example and the foundation of your religion. Scripture alone. Where do you find that doctrine in Scripture? It is not there.

Scripture teaches that one must keep Scripture and Tradition and that one must obey the Church. Yet, Protestants keep disobeying Scripture in the name of Scripture. Quite illogical.

Here's an even clearer example. Faith alone. Scripture says:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Now, being the unreasonable sort that I am, I interpret "not by faith only" to mean "not by faith alone". Yet Protestants insist that justification is by faith only. Go figger. It is a blatant contradiction of Scripture.

[paraclete]

Now, being the unreasonable sort that I am, I interpret "not by faith only" to mean "not by faith alone". Yet Protestants insist that justification is by faith only. Go figger. It is a blatant contradiction of Scripture.

Instead of being argumentative you would have much more chance of convincing me if you testified to the influence of the Holy Spirit in your life.

[galveston]

Mark 16:20
And they went forth, and preached every where, the lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Your arguments would carry a lot more weght if you could back them up with some works as per this Scripture.

[dwashbur]

Unfortunately, all of De Maria's supposed answers to my post take the form of "is not is not is not!" There is no substance at all. I demonstrated, from the actual text of John 2, that Jesus performed his miracle because he chose to, not because his mother or anybody else told him to. Any kind of command, or request, or directive, or anything else, from her, simply isn't there. De Maria chooses to gloss over that simple truth and continue as though there's universal agreement. This kind of cop-out reflects badly on one who claims to know the "spirit" of the text better than the rest of us. The rest of the post is just basic "I know you are, but what am I?" which gets us nowhere. I'm only going to address this one part:

No, I'm taking your words at face value. You, on the other hand, keep dragging irrelevant items out of left field and trying to deflect attention from the fact that your argument doesn't hold up. You said, in so many words, that either Jesus "permitted her to run His life" or he dishonored - and later you said "disowned" - her and committed a sin. That's not a straw man. That's your words.

Again, you keep using the phrase, "in so many words". Essentially admitting that I never said what you accused me of saying.

I'm going to guess from this glaring error that English isn't your first language? Because in English, the phrase "in so many words" means "that's exactly what you said." How you manage to twist that to mean the exact opposite is beyond me, but you're wrong. When I say "in so many words" it means "this what your words say, plain and simple." If I were to say "by implication" the way you did so many times trying to manipulate my words, that would mean you didn't actually say it. "In so many words" means that's precisely what you said, and you did in fact say it so either recant or defend your words. Trying to arbitrarily reverse the meaning of my words gets you nowhere.

[De Maria]

Instead of being argumentative you would have much more chance of convincing me if you testified to the influence of the Holy Spirit in your life.

I'm not here to convince you Paraclete. Nor am I here to get your blessing.

1 Corinthians 4:2-4 (King James Version)

2Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

3But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

4For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

I don't believe in faith alone, therefore I don't believe that I should sit around telling people how good I am. If I am good and if I am doing God's will, He will let me know. My hope is in Him. Not in myself. Not in you.

Does that make sense?

[De Maria]

Unfortunately, all of De Maria's supposed answers to my post take the form of "is not is not is not!" There is no substance at all. I demonstrated, from the actual text of John 2, that Jesus performed his miracle because he chose to, not because his mother or anybody else told him to. Any kind of command, or request, or directive, or anything else, from her, simply isn't there. De Maria chooses to gloss over that simple truth and continue as though there's universal agreement. This kind of cop-out reflects badly on one who claims to know the "spirit" of the text better than the rest of us. The rest of the post is just basic "I know you are, but what am I?" which gets us nowhere.

In other words, you know that you have been refuted and you are trying to save face.

I'm only going to address this one part:

I'm going to guess from this glaring error that English isn't your first language?

Another fallacious argument. Instead of addressing any point, you try to make another straw man to draw attention away from the point at hand.

Because in English, the phrase "in so many words" means "that's exactly what you said." How you manage to twist that to mean the exact opposite is beyond me, but you're wrong.

Lol! I didn't twist it to mean exactly the opposite. You didn't post exactly what I said. You posted selected tidbits which you then dressed up with your commentary to make it sound as though that is what I said. But you misrepresented my point.

When I say "in so many words" it means "this what your words say, plain and simple."

In other words, you pretended to summarize my words. But you didn't summarize the meaning of my words. You quoted a few fragments and proceeded to imbue them with your meaning.

If I were to say "by implication" the way you did so many times trying to manipulate my words, that would mean you didn't actually say it. "In so many words" means that's precisely what you said, and you did in fact say it so either recant or defend your words. Trying to arbitrarily reverse the meaning of my words gets you nowhere.

In fact, I did not say what you claimed I said and you need to quote where you claimed I said it or recant. Since I have made this challenge before and you have yet to meet it, I take that as admission that you were making a fallacious argument.

[De Maria]

Mark 16:20
And they went forth, and preached every where, the lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Your arguments would carry a lot more weght if you could back them up with some works as per this Scripture.

Works are not necessarily miracles. Is that what you mean?

[kpg0001]

When it comes to religion there is no universal answer, there is no right or wrong, it is all relative to the person, culture, or region. Instead of debating about theology, scripture, or tradition, realize that we are all different religiously and that it is OK for someone to have different beliefs. Open your mind and listen. Ignorance breeds prejudice.

[De Maria]

When it comes to religion there is no universal answer, there is no right or wrong, it is all relative to the person, culture, or region.

Are you sure you are right? Or could you be wrong?

Instead of debating about theology, scripture, or tradition, realize that we are all different religiously and that it is OK for someone to have different beliefs.

Did any of us say that it was not OK to have different beliefs? I didn't.

However, I do believe that my beliefs are correct and that my beliefs have a stronger possibility of salvation. You are free to keep your beliefs, but I believe they are not good for your soul and especially for your eternal destination.

Open your mind and listen.

Will you do the same?

Ignorance breeds prejudice.

I don't think any of the "experts" here are ignorant. They seem very knowledgeable about their beliefs.

[JoeCanada76]

Instead of going by what your friend says, why not figure out for yourself what you believe on your own. With your own research, your own studies and deciding what fits what you personally believe.

This person sounds like Anti Catholic, there tends to be lots of difference in opinions depending on the denomination. In reality though we all should be coming together. Embracing each other and accepting that we all have differing beliefs.

Who cares what your friend says. You do not have to believe in anything you do not want to. Do not feel pressured by your friend. Discover what your own beliefs are on your own.

Only way to do that is to read the bible, visit different types of churches and see what fits more for yourself.

[bendingleconte]

Are you sure you are right? Or could you be wrong?



Did any of us say that it was not ok to have different beliefs? I didn't.

However, I do believe that my beliefs are correct and that my beliefs have a stronger possibility of salvation. You are free to keep your beliefs, but I believe they are not good for your soul and especially for your eternal destination.


Will you do the same?



I don't think any of the "experts" here are ignorant. They seem very knowledgeable about their beliefs.

WOW! Super Christian of you. :rolleyes: No wonder I'm Hindu.
Hare Krshna.

[bendingleconte]

You can critique and take out of context whatever quote you want from this post. Hey kinda like bible passages, no wonder you are so good at it.

Right on...

[bendingleconte]

The problem with religious discussion is that people always argue about right and wrong. There is no such thing. God is God and whichever path one walks is all right.