Are all Catholics lost?

[shazeep]

ya, i'm familiar with the rhetoric; i'm just not buying it, sorry. Too much Scripture must be ignored, denied, or distorted imo.

There is no fear in love; instead, perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. So the one who fears has not reached perfection in love.

Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Love, therefore, is the fulfillment of the law.

etc.

why are Christians so unlike Christ?
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...e+Christ%3F%22

why does typing "why are Christians so" into google autocomplete for "mean," and not some fruit of the spirit?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ya, i'm familiar with the rhetoric; i'm just not buying it, sorry. Too much Scripture must be ignored, denied, or distorted imo.

There is no fear in love; instead, perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. So the one who fears has not reached perfection in love.

Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Love, therefore, is the fulfillment of the law.

etc.

why are Christians so unlike Christ?
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...e+Christ%3F%22

why does typing "why are Christians so" into google autocomplete for "mean," and not some fruit of the spirit?

Rhetoric? Google search engine?

If my neighbor is worshipping idols is it loving to speak to them of their need to repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ?

[shazeep]

i mean no disrespect @ "rhetoric," rhetoric is not a bad thing, necessarily. I am using rhetoric, too. Google search engine, yes. People, in mass numbers, asking questions, audited by auto-complete. Quite educational imo. Nothing wrong with it, either.

As to your last question, i already know that you don't know of anyone who bows down to little wooden totems, so the definition of idols has changed. You might examine your elder's explanation of the Golden Rule--i think it was left @ "anyone who is nice to me, i'm nice to them" paraphrased--or how to involve the cross more effectively--"read some Paul, and viola"--or any of the many obfuscations in just the last few pages, if you want to examine idols, because Love has been completely negated in them.

Surely you would agree that "idols" have a spiritual definition now; and quite obviously, your definition is going to vary from a Catholic's. I am no fan of Catholic dogma, but the point is who gets to define "idols" for that neighbor of yours? Would you appreciate me pointing out your idols? Almost surely not. This is a way to rephrase "i get to judge" in this day and age, wadr.

No, it is not loving to do this, or at least i can imagine no scenario in which you are not offending, if you have not been asked. In what situation would you appreciate a stranger, or even an acquaintance (or even immediate family, for that matter ), pointing out that your idol might be yourself? It is universally an ego-feeding exercise, now, if it was ever any different, which i doubt. 1 AD, perhaps. 69 AD, maybe. If someone asks you, sure, fire away. But volunteering your opinion will be taken as offense, as it should be imo.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i mean no disrespect @ "rhetoric," rhetoric is not a bad thing, necessarily. I am using rhetoric, too. Google search engine, yes. People, in mass numbers, asking questions, audited by auto-complete. Quite educational imo. Nothing wrong with it, either.

As to your last question, i already know that you don't know of anyone who bows down to little wooden totems, so the definition of idols has changed. You might examine your elder's explanation of the Golden Rule--i think it was left @ "anyone who is nice to me, i'm nice to them" paraphrased--or how to involve the cross more effectively--"read some Paul, and viola"--or any of the many obfuscations in just the last few pages, if you want to examine idols, because Love has been completely negated in them.

Surely you would agree that "idols" have a spiritual definition now; and quite obviously, your definition is going to vary from a Catholic's. I am no fan of Catholic dogma, but the point is who gets to define "idols" for that neighbor of yours? Would you appreciate me pointing out your idols? Almost surely not. This is a way to rephrase "i get to judge" in this day and age, wadr.

No, it is not loving to do this, or at least i can imagine no scenario in which you are not offending, if you have not been asked. In what situation would you appreciate a stranger, or even an acquaintance (or even immediate family, for that matter ), pointing out that your idol might be yourself? It is universally an ego-feeding exercise, now, if it was ever any different, which i doubt. 1 AD, perhaps. 69 AD, maybe. If someone asks you, sure, fire away. But volunteering your opinion will be taken as offense, as it should be imo.

Worshipping idols. Bowing down to household gods, assume my neighbors are Asian or Indian. Not spiritualizing it right now just trying to get a direct answer. I guess you could substitute adultery. If my neighbor is actively and consistently partaking in adultery, is it unloving to tell them of their need to repent, or is that just feeding my ego?

[shazeep]

would they be offended? Then there is a better way to reflect Christ to them. Many better ways. Wouldn't your neighbor already be aware of the pitfalls of adultery? You don't think their mother has prolly not already clued them in? Would they be offended? Then there is a better way, and you are likely feeding your ego.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by shazeep

would they be offended? Then there is a better way to reflect Christ to them. Many better ways. Wouldn't your neighbor already be aware of the pitfalls of adultery? You don't think their mother has prolly not already clued them in? Would they be offended? Then there is a better way, and you are likely feeding your ego.

Good grief, this is ridiculous.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by shazeep

would they be offended? Then there is a better way to reflect Christ to them. Many better ways. Wouldn't your neighbor already be aware of the pitfalls of adultery? You don't think their mother has prolly not already clued them in? Would they be offended? Then there is a better way, and you are likely feeding your ego.

Well assume your opinion is offensive to me, so quit sharing on this forum, since your highest priority is to cause no offense to anyone ever. Consider me offended.

Tic

[shazeep]

alrighty then

[shazeep]

i would like to restate here that Mike may be better at practicing the Golden Rule than i am. We are just talking; with the added filter of having to type it. No doubt he might rephrase some of the points that i likely misunderstood, and even if i still didn't like his answers, that is not the best measure of his heart imo. Doctrine paints people into some strange corners.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

I cannot die on the cross and remit my own sins! I realize now that all your concepts of salvation, and agape love equaling God's work on the cross, women saving themselves by becoming pregnant and giving birth, are all means of salvation that never address SIN. the SIN question is seemingly absent from your concept of salvation. So, what are people saved FROM if not sin? What does salvation even mean to you? It's seemingly nothing to do with sin.

great question, and apparently seconded, so i'll try again here. You ask God for forgiveness when you sin, yet God has already forgiven you, and asking forgiveness of the person wronged is kind of secondary, in your model.

God has not forgiven me before I ask for forgiveness. So, not sure what you're saying here.

Also, forgiveness from a person is not secondary. In fact, Jesus distinctly said he will not forgive if we do not make it right with out brothers first. Even the Lord's prayer told us we cannot ask forgiveness if we don't give it to our brothers first.

Sticking with my theme here, i would suggest that loving your neighbor and/or agape involve confession and rebound, a fancy way to say that when you make a mistake and hurt someone, you man up and express remorse, naming your mistake and willingness to forego do it in the future.

But that does not save me.

Sounds easy, but in practice is functionally impossible for many people; and i'm seeing a reflection of your "no one can do agape love" here, and other denials of what the Cross means imo, Be perfect, as I am perfect, Pick up your cross and follow Me, as well as relegating works to volunteering in the church nursery on Sunday or whatever, read some Paul and wa-la. A good deed(that's a work, i think anyway)covers many sins, regardless of which of the 2(?) ways you choose to take that, which i think both have Scriptural support.

I find no biblical precedent for saying any of these things you listed save me.

(i still don't like my answer here, after putting it to my former, legal self, so fixated upon sin, and i doubt this answer will serve you, for the simple reason that we are so close together, and not that we are so far apart, strangely).

but if you will, punch some holes in this and we'll circle around it some more, or BAM present a better model.

The bible is full of absolute statements when it comes to salvation. And all other passages that you feel circumvent them, actually are vague "circumventions" as you yourself admit.

For example:

John 14:6 KJV Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 8:23-24 KJV And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. (24) I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

-----
Note contextual flow:

John 10:1 KJV Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

John 10:7-8 KJV Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. (8) All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

John 10:11 KJV I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

-----

Acts 4:12 KJV Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

John 3:36 KJV He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

It's not a doctrine I have found. It doesn't work like that. Saying that is the case is saying God is not in the equation. We cannot look at it like a million doctrinal needles in a veritable haystack, and only one works, and so other is no way to look at one single doctrine. That's perceiving the picture through fleshly eyes of unbelief, and treating the search for God like an individual who has no divine assistance, left to his own wits alone.

God leads sincere hearts. And they wind up at the truth. I know I have more leading required. But as far as salvation is concerned, that's plain a simple child can see it. People are everywhere who had no one preach to them this very doctrine, and saw the plainness of it outside religion and dogmatism, as it's plain for everyone to see.

God leads, shazeep. He's a conscious being! He's not standing there watching us grasp for truth, but sees the heart of the sincere and guides their reaching hand.