Are all Catholics lost?

[shazeep]

ya--i mean those in general, and didn't mean to attack Mike specifically. I think defending a religion or doctrine will paint one into corners, so to speak, and people are trained into pat answers or denial without even realizing it, because they naturally become ego-invested in their choices. I am no different. The choices we make reflect upon our character, and "i don't really know" is not perceived as a valid choice.

i have stuck with Apo/Pent people primarily because of the popular edict "i'm here because these people seem to be most interested in adhering to Scripture, and if i find some others who are more genuine in this pursuit, i will follow them."

of course this is only what we tell ourselves, and is only as true as the person themselves is--which i find follows the trajectory of a person's beliefs. Meaning that of course we mean this statement at first, and then over time we come to not mean it, in a reflection, perhaps, of forgetting our first love. With all this in mind i'm sure that Mike would put some of his recent interpretations differently, or barring that perhaps you (or another of his defenders) might like to defend them?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ya--i mean those in general, and didn't mean to attack Mike specifically. I think defending a religion or doctrine will paint one into corners, so to speak, and people are trained into pat answers or denial without even realizing it, because they naturally become ego-invested in their choices. I am no different. The choices we make reflect upon our character, and "i don't really know" is not perceived as a valid choice.

i have stuck with Apo/Pent people primarily because of the popular edict "i'm here because these people seem to be most interested in adhering to Scripture, and if i find some others who are more genuine in this pursuit, i will follow them."

of course this is only what we tell ourselves, and is only as true as the person themselves is--which i find follows the trajectory of a person's beliefs. Meaning that of course we mean this statement at first, and then over time we come to not mean it, in a reflection, perhaps, of forgetting our first love. With all this in mind i'm sure that Mike would put some of his recent interpretations differently, or barring that perhaps you (or another of his defenders) might like to defend them?

That is the problem with religion and MAN MADE DOCTRINE. It is hard to look someone in the eye and say, what I used to believe was not true. Especially when you defended it so belligerently in past. In a world of such enlightenment, where we are sending men into space, harnessing the power of electricity, making leaps and bounds in the field of medicine, that there are subcultures, that believe wearing certain clothing, hair styles, or jewelry will send a person to hell.

Paul tells us we are complete in Christ, not vain deceit, traditions, or philosophy of men. Yet so many Christians are so hung up on these that they cannot see the forest for the trees. IMO these same people would deny Christ if he came to earth today and taught the same things he taught 2000 years ago. Because his teaching today would go against their philosophy and traditions just as it did 2000 years ago.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

That is the problem with religion and MAN MADE DOCTRINE. It is hard to look someone in the eye and say, what I used to believe was not true. Especially when you defended it so belligerently in past. In a world of such enlightenment, where we are sending men into space, harnessing the power of electricity, making leaps and bounds in the field of medicine, that there are subcultures, that believe wearing certain clothing, hair styles, or jewelry will send a person to hell.

Paul tells us we are complete in Christ, not vain deceit, traditions, or philosophy of men. Yet so many Christians are so hung up on these that they cannot see the forest for the trees. IMO these same people would deny Christ if he came to earth today and taught the same things he taught 2000 years ago. Because his teaching today would go against their philosophy and traditions just as it did 2000 years ago.

Everybody likes to think THEIR version of faith is God's version. Both the meanies, and the sweeties. And God will win in the end, thankfully, and all of us will be judged by him, not each other. Both the meanies, and the sweeties, and the wanna be in betweenies.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Everybody likes to think THEIR version of faith is God's version. Both the meanies, and the sweeties. And God will win in the end, thankfully, and all of us will be judged by him, not each other. Both the meanies, and the sweeties, and the wanna be in betweenies.

I like that! But what if Christ already came and judged between the meanies and sweeties and now requires everyone to just be sweeties?

There is a underlining thread throughout history portrayed on scripture even, that pertains the how we are to treat our fellow man. That thread is found as the basis of what is contained in the law. "Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself" Quote from the mouth of Christ himself.

There was a reason Christ came at the appointed time he did. I believe it has to do with human sacrifices. God gave the sacrificial system to the Jews, as a diversion to keep them from offering their children as was the trend with other nations at that time.
Though Christ sacrifice should have ended human sacrifice for all time. Religion still has found a way to continue to offer human sacrifice in a bloodless way. They call it salvation. The Gospel. But the whole is that Christ brought in the kingdom of God. That kingdom was to be based on Love your neighbor and love God.
One should note, he does not specify whose God or what God, just Love God first, and love your neighbor as yourself. So religion says I will love my neighbor if they love MY God.

The true question should not be are all Catholics and Muslims lost? But are all Pentecostals, Baptist, Methodist, 7th day Adventist...Catholics, pagans, Hindus etc. lost?

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I like that! But what if Christ already came and judged between the meanies and sweeties and now requires everyone to just be sweeties?

Can't we all just be Sweeties?