Are all Catholics lost?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I extend the golden rule to muslims, catholics and anyone else who truly does to others what they want done to them.

^
i would argue that you quite evidently do not actually extend the Golden Rule near as far as you proclaim here, but one hairball at a time.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

^
i would argue that you quite evidently do not actually extend the Golden Rule near as far as you proclaim here, but one hairball at a time.

I said, Goodbye. You can only attack persons.

[shazeep]

that is what Muslims and Catholics are saying about you though, Mike, and wadr your interpretation of how to apply the GR lends credence to their objections. It would serve me better to just shut up and let the poll speak for itself, obviously.

[shazeep]

i mean yikes, we're 30 pages deep here and no one can even tell how you would vote

[shazeep]

[shazeep]

[Evang.Benincasa]

I see shazeep is using his psychological projection again?

[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.

[shazeep]

yes, i surely agree there, but it seems that rather than getting any closer together on the matter, we are either getting farther apart--if many OPs in fact believe

"I extend the golden rule to muslims, catholics and anyone else who truly does to others what they want done to them"--

or i have discovered why they are comfortable with "All Catholics Are Lost."

(Which, since this forum has plenty of OP pastors on it, and no one seems inclined to amend this farcical interpretation of the GR, i am being increasingly conditioned to accept as reality). Wow, that was really hard to write without phrases that could be taken as put-downs hope it still makes some sense; "farcical" i can pretty easily defend imo.