Are all Catholics lost? - Page 43

mfblume · #**421** 09-08-2016, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

as long as you get to define what born again means, i'm sure it is, but you might note how "Love is for the confused" gets incorporated along the way, somehow. Oh, and "miracles" = "operations," not sure when that happened

How in the world knows what you're even referring to by "love is for the confused" and "miracles=operation"??

I've never seen anyone imagine what they WANT someone to believe and then believe it with all one's heart like I have with yourself here. The worst case of putting words in people's mouths I ever saw. That's why you need to quote what was said so we can clarify. For goodness' sake, you thought I meant I only love those as I would have them love me if they do the same first! And it took me days before I realized you thought that so I could clarify it.

shazeep · #**422** 09-11-2016, 08:23 AM

ah, did you fix that one, after i quoted it back? i guess i missed it, sorry. Interesting that it has now become about how i didn't understand; if you go look, my next post after you said "i am willing to extend the GR to whoever extends it to me" was "that is not how it is done."

Not quoting you is doing you a favor, most of the time, i am not feeling compelled to insist that you said "Love is for the confused" and go dig it up and hold you to it; if you are sure you never said it, then fine you never said it, and now it makes no sense whatsoever for me to keep asking about it. Fine, go with that.

mfblume · #**423** 09-12-2016, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

ah, did you fix that one, after i quoted it back? i guess i missed it, sorry. Interesting that it has now become about how i didn't understand; if you go look, my next post after you said "i am willing to extend the GR to whoever extends it to me" was "that is not how it is done."

Not quoting you is doing you a favor, most of the time, i am not feeling compelled to insist that you said "Love is for the confused" and go dig it up and hold you to it; if you are sure you never said it, then fine you never said it, and now it makes no sense whatsoever for me to keep asking about it. Fine, go with that.

Your reference to "i am willing to extend the GR to whoever extends it to me" was explained as a total misunderstanding of my words. I MEANT, and I already clarified this, that I extend the category of those who obey the golden rule to anybody who loves others as they wold have others love them. In other words, everyone who loves others as they would have others love them are the people keeping the golden rule. I did not mean I only love others if they love me.

I am not sure if you are still not getting my clarification on that, or you got it and you're saying something else in this post. Your posts just aren't clear. I've said that many times now.

I saw where you said "i am willing to extend the GR to whoever extends it to me" is not how it's done, and I AGREE. But did you read my clarification afterwards showing I finally realized how you took my words and noted what I actually meant?

shazeep · #**424** 09-22-2016, 11:13 AM

ok, yes, now i see that you were merely qualifying the GR for others. Why you would want to do that i am not sure, but that may have been pertinent in the moment also.

so the Q remains--if these others have been observed practicing the Golden Rule, why are they not considered "saved?" And if they are not saved, why would they practice the GR? Why would they "hate their life," if it is the only one they deem that they have?

shazeep · #**425** 09-22-2016, 12:32 PM

^

Esaias · #**426** 09-22-2016, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

so the Q remains--if these others have been observed practicing the Golden Rule, why are they not considered "saved?"

Because the Bible nowhere says "whoever does unto others as you would have them do unto you is saved."

Quote:

And if they are not saved, why would they practice the GR?

Why wouldnt they? The "golden rule" has existed in one form or another in every religion on earth.

Quote:

Why would they "hate their life," if it is the only one they deem that they have?

"Hate his own life also" is about preferring to follow Jesus and His teachings over and above anything else. It is not about a generic loathing of one's life and/or circumstances. Otherwise, only depressed people will be saved.

shazeep · #**427** 09-22-2016, 08:07 PM

well i agree with you there, but it does indicate self sacrifice, and i think the central issue is 'does "fulfill the law" = salvation, what is the case for that. legally, any way. it's kind of hard to refute imo. i would be ruthless in my examination here

mfblume · #**428** 09-22-2016, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

Because the Bible nowhere says "whoever does unto others as you would have them do unto you is saved."

Why wouldnt they? The "golden rule" has existed in one form or another in every religion on earth.

"Hate his own life also" is about preferring to follow Jesus and His teachings over and above anything else. It is not about a generic loathing of one's life and/or circumstances. Otherwise, only depressed people will be saved.

That's the ever important point! Jesus never said the GR saves anyone!

mfblume · #**429** 09-22-2016, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

well i agree with you there, but it does indicate self sacrifice, and i think the central issue is 'does "fulfill the law" = salvation, what is the case for that. legally, any way. it's kind of hard to refute imo. i would be ruthless in my examination here

Fulfilling the law simply means it's what the law demanded and it is accomplished. Not that it saves. No one can be saved by law, or else Jesus did not have to come and die on the cross.

There is no cross to carry and follow Jesus if He did not carry the cross of dying for our sins first. Denying self is only called carrying our crosses because Jesus first died on the cross in ultimate sacrifice for OUR SINS, as an example of how can carry our crosses in self denial and sacrifice, but never for OUR SINS. You cannot carry your cross and save yourself from your sins apart from Jesus who carried his cross for our sins. Self denial only allows the salvation we receive by the cross of Jesus to fully live through us, and without salvation, self denial does nothing more than discipline yourself and leave you lost in sin.

Self denial as a means of salvation is salvation by works, and these other religions who genuinely keep the golden rule believe you can be saved by works! By no means should they stop keeping the golden rule, but they do need to stop believing it saves them! You can be lost while you keep the golden rule.

shazeep · #**430** 09-23-2016, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

That's the ever important point! Jesus never said the GR saves anyone!

well, you guys can believe that if you like, but that is Christ talking; we have examined other definitions of salvation, that chiefly seem to disregard fruit to me, but also immediately demand an unhealthy dichotomy in the mind of the newly converted; "i am now one of us instead of one of them," which is quite gratifying to one's ego of course, but the cost is only uncovered later.

Because people in that state are naturally going to want to continue being One Of Us, because of course They Are All Lost, and some guy in a tie even has Scripture To Prove It, after Christ's Word has been explained away sufficiently, because He of course is vague and impenetrable, and we take Paul literally because he is clear and concise. "Fulfills the Law" is pretty strong language to be dismissing out-of-hand imo, and i'm still waiting for the argument.