GOD-cont'd
Elder User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
From: Where they take the census by counting the appliances on the front porch and multiplying by five
GOD-cont'd
>
>Please help me with this because if more souls are going to
>hell like I have read on some of these posts, then I want to
>get out of the way when all hell breaks loose!
>
>But then again if hell is shrinking because everyone is
>repenting and seeing the light, thereby going into heaven,
>then I going back to college to find the woman who said she
>would screw me when all hell freezes over!
>
>Either way I gotta pack my bags man.......see ya's.
That was so good.
According to Calvin & Hobbes -Heaven is playing saxophone with an all-girl band in a cabaret in New Orleans.
Chuck
Freshman User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: Adamstown USA
GOD-cont'd
>>The conditional salvation viewpoint (as I understand it)
>>recognizes as SHartman pointed out that nothing outside the
>>individual can separate a person from their salvation.
>
>The scripture doesn't say no one but yourself can take
>you from Jesus' hand. It says NO ONE (emphasis mine). That
>includes the individual. You can't take yourself out His
>hand either. If you could, you would be stronger than God,
>and He would be a liar.
>
>
>>However, when we give our lives to Jesus Christ he doesn't
>>take away our free will.
>>
>>In spite of how much more satisfying life is in Christ, we
>>have the ability to turn our backs on that salvation and
>>lose it - or choose to walk away from it. That's what
>>Hebrews 10:26-31 describes, especially v. 26.
>
>Actually, Hebrews 10:26-31 refers to someone who hears
>the truth of Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice and rejects
>it. Notice verse 26 says "If we deliberately keep on sinning
>after we have received the knowledge of the truth..." It
>does not say after we have ACCEPTED the truth. If we reject
>Jesus, then as verse 26 goes on to say, "no sacrifice for
>sin is left" since Jesus is the only sacrifice for sin.
>Since we have rejected Jesus, we can expect what verse 27
>promises; "a fearful expectation of judgement and of raging
>fire that will consume the enemies of God"
>
>
>>Twelve direct
>>references to backsliding and tens of others referring to
>>God's Spirit departing from someone determined to ignore
>>God's presence make a pretty strong case for this view. The
>>apostle Paul describes the daily struggle within us as our
>>old nature wrestles with our new nature for control.
>
>For the Christian, when we sin (backslide), our
>fellowship with God is broken. We don't lose our salvation,
>we lose the close relationship. When you were a child and
>disobeyed your parents, did they throw you out of the
>family? Or did they discipline you so you wouldn't disobey
>again? Was the discipline uncomfortable? God does the same
>thing with His children. Doesn't mean we are not still His
>kids. And again, the references to "someone determined to
>ignore God's presence" is not speaking of the person who has
>accepted Jesus but to those who have never accepted Him.
>
>
>>Finally, Ephesians 2:8,9 states salvation is a gift of God's
>>grace rec'd by faith. Not earned or on the basis of how
>>good we are.
>
>Amen. And since it is a gift of God which we can't earn
>by being good enough, why should we think we can be bad
>enough to lose it? The fact is, we were bad enough to lose
>it when He gave it to us in the first place.
>
>>Religion is a poor substitute.
>
>Again Amen. Religion is man reaching out to god, trying
>to please him by being good enough to earn his favor and
>good enough not to lose his favor. Christianity is God
>reaching down to man, providing a way for man to reach God,
>and accepting him as he is.
I think he was going to where someone backslides and walks away from God completely because of it(?). We still have our freedom of choice we can chose to reject God even after we've accepted him. So you're saying that we can accept him then decide to live our life however we see fit and he will just allow us into His presence when we die anyway? (I'm trying to understand) Our salvation is based on our faith, and if we chose to ignore our Father's words and turn our back on Him then we are no longer walking by our faith, so how could I still expect to spend eternity in His presence then?
And the whole Christianity as a religion, it depends on your point of view. (For those who asked about how its not)The pomp and circumstance of a church is religion. My Christianity is about MY personal relationship with my Heavenly Father. They are two very different things. The pomp and circumstance doesn't get you to Heaven only by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior can you get to Heaven. So to me anyway, Christianity is my daily walk with my Heavenly Father...my reading and prayer and worship times of my day. So thats why at least I don't think of Christianity as a religion. Hope this helps someone.
>>recognizes as SHartman pointed out that nothing outside the
>>individual can separate a person from their salvation.
>
>The scripture doesn't say no one but yourself can take
>you from Jesus' hand. It says NO ONE (emphasis mine). That
>includes the individual. You can't take yourself out His
>hand either. If you could, you would be stronger than God,
>and He would be a liar.
>
>
>>However, when we give our lives to Jesus Christ he doesn't
>>take away our free will.
>>
>>In spite of how much more satisfying life is in Christ, we
>>have the ability to turn our backs on that salvation and
>>lose it - or choose to walk away from it. That's what
>>Hebrews 10:26-31 describes, especially v. 26.
>
>Actually, Hebrews 10:26-31 refers to someone who hears
>the truth of Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice and rejects
>it. Notice verse 26 says "If we deliberately keep on sinning
>after we have received the knowledge of the truth..." It
>does not say after we have ACCEPTED the truth. If we reject
>Jesus, then as verse 26 goes on to say, "no sacrifice for
>sin is left" since Jesus is the only sacrifice for sin.
>Since we have rejected Jesus, we can expect what verse 27
>promises; "a fearful expectation of judgement and of raging
>fire that will consume the enemies of God"
>
>
>>Twelve direct
>>references to backsliding and tens of others referring to
>>God's Spirit departing from someone determined to ignore
>>God's presence make a pretty strong case for this view. The
>>apostle Paul describes the daily struggle within us as our
>>old nature wrestles with our new nature for control.
>
>For the Christian, when we sin (backslide), our
>fellowship with God is broken. We don't lose our salvation,
>we lose the close relationship. When you were a child and
>disobeyed your parents, did they throw you out of the
>family? Or did they discipline you so you wouldn't disobey
>again? Was the discipline uncomfortable? God does the same
>thing with His children. Doesn't mean we are not still His
>kids. And again, the references to "someone determined to
>ignore God's presence" is not speaking of the person who has
>accepted Jesus but to those who have never accepted Him.
>
>
>>Finally, Ephesians 2:8,9 states salvation is a gift of God's
>>grace rec'd by faith. Not earned or on the basis of how
>>good we are.
>
>Amen. And since it is a gift of God which we can't earn
>by being good enough, why should we think we can be bad
>enough to lose it? The fact is, we were bad enough to lose
>it when He gave it to us in the first place.
>
>>Religion is a poor substitute.
>
>Again Amen. Religion is man reaching out to god, trying
>to please him by being good enough to earn his favor and
>good enough not to lose his favor. Christianity is God
>reaching down to man, providing a way for man to reach God,
>and accepting him as he is.
I think he was going to where someone backslides and walks away from God completely because of it(?). We still have our freedom of choice we can chose to reject God even after we've accepted him. So you're saying that we can accept him then decide to live our life however we see fit and he will just allow us into His presence when we die anyway? (I'm trying to understand) Our salvation is based on our faith, and if we chose to ignore our Father's words and turn our back on Him then we are no longer walking by our faith, so how could I still expect to spend eternity in His presence then?
And the whole Christianity as a religion, it depends on your point of view. (For those who asked about how its not)The pomp and circumstance of a church is religion. My Christianity is about MY personal relationship with my Heavenly Father. They are two very different things. The pomp and circumstance doesn't get you to Heaven only by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior can you get to Heaven. So to me anyway, Christianity is my daily walk with my Heavenly Father...my reading and prayer and worship times of my day. So thats why at least I don't think of Christianity as a religion. Hope this helps someone.
Laughing Gas
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
From: Utica, NY
GOD-cont'd
rbrendel and bryan_henry -
I'm also a Catholic and found this post to be false. Nothing personal DF, but what you stated about MY church simply isn't true. And the Pope isn't the anti-christ. I saw him in Toronto for World Youth Day and he's a truly inspirational man.
Once again, I'm not attacking anyone as we are all intitled to our opinions, but the truth is the truth.
I'm also a Catholic and found this post to be false. Nothing personal DF, but what you stated about MY church simply isn't true. And the Pope isn't the anti-christ. I saw him in Toronto for World Youth Day and he's a truly inspirational man.
Once again, I'm not attacking anyone as we are all intitled to our opinions, but the truth is the truth.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,860
Likes: 4
From: Metro Detroit (Redford)
GOD-cont'd
>>>tall paul-the Pope-the anti-christ?-why?
>>
>>2 Thessalonians 2:3-10
>
>2 Thessalonians 2
>3Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will
>not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of
>lawlessness[1] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
>4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that
>is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in
>God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
>5Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell
>you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him
>back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For
>the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the
>one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is
>taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be
>revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath
>of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The
>coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the
>work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit
>miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil
>that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because
>they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
>
>Ok,
>1. The Pope has never proclaimed himself to be God. vs4
Let’s see what the Pope has to say about it. The following are from the book, “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” (Image/Doubleday, 995) with signed approval by Pope John Paul II):
“For the Roman Pontiff [the Pope], by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (Item 882, page 254)
“The Roman Pontiff … enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, … he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.” (Item 891, page 256)
“Showing himself to be God” (King James Version). The Greek does not necessarily mean that he says, “I am God,” but that he exhibits or demonstrates the appearance of being God. The Bible says that only God has supreme and universal power over the whole church and that only God is infallible.
>2. He is not lawless, in fact he has been working for world
>peace ever since he became pope. vs7
The lawlessness shows fourth in not being obedient to the Word of God. The Pope proclaims (supposedly infallibly) many doctrines in contradiction to the Word of God. For example, the same catechism states that “we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life” (Item 2027, page 545), but the Bible says in Ephesians 2 verses 9 and 9 “For it is by grace that ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” It is fine to work for world peace, but telling people they can work their own way into Heaven in contradiction to the clear gospel of Christ is a damning doctrine.
>3. There have been many popes since this passage was
>written. So then does the new person BECOME the anti-christ
>after being installed as pope?
All Popes are the Antichrist by virtue of their office. The text indicates that the roots of the Papacy were already there in the Apostle Paul’s time (verse 7) and that the Antichrist will be around until Christ returns (verse 8).
>Reading this I would choose historical figures such as
>Lennin, Mao, Castro, and Nero, But not the Pope.
No, none of these folks "set themselves up in God's temple" (verse 4) by proclaiming they were the "Vicar of Christ" and pastor over the entire church.
Nothing against Catholics. Just pointing out what I believe and why I will not be subject to the Pope.
>>
>>2 Thessalonians 2:3-10
>
>2 Thessalonians 2
>3Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will
>not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of
>lawlessness[1] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
>4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that
>is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in
>God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
>5Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell
>you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him
>back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For
>the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the
>one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is
>taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be
>revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath
>of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The
>coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the
>work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit
>miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil
>that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because
>they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
>
>Ok,
>1. The Pope has never proclaimed himself to be God. vs4
Let’s see what the Pope has to say about it. The following are from the book, “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” (Image/Doubleday, 995) with signed approval by Pope John Paul II):
“For the Roman Pontiff [the Pope], by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (Item 882, page 254)
“The Roman Pontiff … enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, … he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.” (Item 891, page 256)
“Showing himself to be God” (King James Version). The Greek does not necessarily mean that he says, “I am God,” but that he exhibits or demonstrates the appearance of being God. The Bible says that only God has supreme and universal power over the whole church and that only God is infallible.
>2. He is not lawless, in fact he has been working for world
>peace ever since he became pope. vs7
The lawlessness shows fourth in not being obedient to the Word of God. The Pope proclaims (supposedly infallibly) many doctrines in contradiction to the Word of God. For example, the same catechism states that “we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life” (Item 2027, page 545), but the Bible says in Ephesians 2 verses 9 and 9 “For it is by grace that ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” It is fine to work for world peace, but telling people they can work their own way into Heaven in contradiction to the clear gospel of Christ is a damning doctrine.
>3. There have been many popes since this passage was
>written. So then does the new person BECOME the anti-christ
>after being installed as pope?
All Popes are the Antichrist by virtue of their office. The text indicates that the roots of the Papacy were already there in the Apostle Paul’s time (verse 7) and that the Antichrist will be around until Christ returns (verse 8).
>Reading this I would choose historical figures such as
>Lennin, Mao, Castro, and Nero, But not the Pope.
No, none of these folks "set themselves up in God's temple" (verse 4) by proclaiming they were the "Vicar of Christ" and pastor over the entire church.
Nothing against Catholics. Just pointing out what I believe and why I will not be subject to the Pope.
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
GOD-cont'd
<snip>
>>Ok,
>>1. The Pope has never proclaimed himself to be God. vs4
>
>Let’s see what the Pope has to say about it. The following
>are from the book, “Catechism of the Catholic Church,”
>(Image/Doubleday, 995) with signed approval by Pope John
>Paul II):
>
>“For the Roman Pontiff [the Pope], by reason of his office
>as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has
>full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a
>power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (Item 882,
>page 254)
>
>“The Roman Pontiff … enjoys this infallibility in virtue of
>his office, when, … he proclaims by a definitive act a
>doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.” (Item 891, page
>256)
>
>“Showing himself to be God” (King James Version). The Greek
>does not necessarily mean that he says, “I am God,” but that
>he exhibits or demonstrates the appearance of being God.
>The Bible says that only God has supreme and universal power
>over the whole church and that only God is infallible.
>
Ok, so the Pope is the leader of the church. There is no other man that can command him. It's a dictatorship. 'Vicar of Christ' referrs to the pope's role as Christ's administrative assistant. Not that he is installing himself as a replacement for God or Jesus.
>
>
>>2. He is not lawless, in fact he has been working for world
>>peace ever since he became pope. vs7
>
>The lawlessness shows fourth in not being obedient to the
>Word of God. The Pope proclaims (supposedly infallibly)
>many doctrines in contradiction to the Word of God. For
>example, the same catechism states that “we can merit for
>ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain
>eternal life” (Item 2027, page 545), but the Bible says in
>Ephesians 2 verses 9 and 9 “For it is by grace that ye are
>saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the
>gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” It
>is fine to work for world peace, but telling people they can
>work their own way into Heaven in contradiction to the clear
>gospel of Christ is a damning doctrine.
>
>
Well, yes, you can 'merit ... the graces needed to attain eternal life' Merit- something done to earn a result. Even in your posts you have indicated that a person must 'DO' something to 'earn' their way into heaven. You have stated that yours is the only 'true' religion. Therefore in order for me to go to heaven I must subscribe (something to 'do') to your system of beliefs. Others have stated I must 'accept Jesus Christ as my personal lord and saviour' (God how I hate that phrase. See I'm praying now) Again someting I must do-- 'accept'.
>
>>3. There have been many popes since this passage was
>>written. So then does the new person BECOME the anti-christ
>>after being installed as pope?
>
>All Popes are the Antichrist by virtue of their office.
Man, that's just wrong.
>The text indicates that the roots of the Papacy were already
>there in the Apostle Paul’s time (verse 7) and that the
>Antichrist will be around until Christ returns (verse 8).
>
>
The gospel also states that Jesus said to Peter you are my rock and upon you I will build a church. He later said whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. In other words Jesus was installing Peter as the supreme leader of his church, the dictator. What ever he said was church law.
>
>>Reading this I would choose historical figures such as
>>Lennin, Mao, Castro, and Nero, But not the Pope.
>
>No, none of these folks "set themselves up in God's temple"
>(verse 4) by proclaiming they were the "Vicar of Christ" and
>pastor over the entire church.
>
They didn't set themselve up as a relgious leader but they did everything they could to crush religious worship in their countries.
>
>Nothing against Catholics. Just pointing out what I believe
>and why I will not be subject to the Pope.
You keep saying nothing against Catholics and then with the next breath that their leader is the anti-christ. Well that IS something against catholics. And while you might not act on it someone else who subscribed to your system might.
>>Ok,
>>1. The Pope has never proclaimed himself to be God. vs4
>
>Let’s see what the Pope has to say about it. The following
>are from the book, “Catechism of the Catholic Church,”
>(Image/Doubleday, 995) with signed approval by Pope John
>Paul II):
>
>“For the Roman Pontiff [the Pope], by reason of his office
>as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has
>full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a
>power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (Item 882,
>page 254)
>
>“The Roman Pontiff … enjoys this infallibility in virtue of
>his office, when, … he proclaims by a definitive act a
>doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.” (Item 891, page
>256)
>
>“Showing himself to be God” (King James Version). The Greek
>does not necessarily mean that he says, “I am God,” but that
>he exhibits or demonstrates the appearance of being God.
>The Bible says that only God has supreme and universal power
>over the whole church and that only God is infallible.
>
Ok, so the Pope is the leader of the church. There is no other man that can command him. It's a dictatorship. 'Vicar of Christ' referrs to the pope's role as Christ's administrative assistant. Not that he is installing himself as a replacement for God or Jesus.
>
>
>>2. He is not lawless, in fact he has been working for world
>>peace ever since he became pope. vs7
>
>The lawlessness shows fourth in not being obedient to the
>Word of God. The Pope proclaims (supposedly infallibly)
>many doctrines in contradiction to the Word of God. For
>example, the same catechism states that “we can merit for
>ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain
>eternal life” (Item 2027, page 545), but the Bible says in
>Ephesians 2 verses 9 and 9 “For it is by grace that ye are
>saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the
>gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” It
>is fine to work for world peace, but telling people they can
>work their own way into Heaven in contradiction to the clear
>gospel of Christ is a damning doctrine.
>
>
Well, yes, you can 'merit ... the graces needed to attain eternal life' Merit- something done to earn a result. Even in your posts you have indicated that a person must 'DO' something to 'earn' their way into heaven. You have stated that yours is the only 'true' religion. Therefore in order for me to go to heaven I must subscribe (something to 'do') to your system of beliefs. Others have stated I must 'accept Jesus Christ as my personal lord and saviour' (God how I hate that phrase. See I'm praying now) Again someting I must do-- 'accept'.
>
>>3. There have been many popes since this passage was
>>written. So then does the new person BECOME the anti-christ
>>after being installed as pope?
>
>All Popes are the Antichrist by virtue of their office.
Man, that's just wrong.
>The text indicates that the roots of the Papacy were already
>there in the Apostle Paul’s time (verse 7) and that the
>Antichrist will be around until Christ returns (verse 8).
>
>
The gospel also states that Jesus said to Peter you are my rock and upon you I will build a church. He later said whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. In other words Jesus was installing Peter as the supreme leader of his church, the dictator. What ever he said was church law.
>
>>Reading this I would choose historical figures such as
>>Lennin, Mao, Castro, and Nero, But not the Pope.
>
>No, none of these folks "set themselves up in God's temple"
>(verse 4) by proclaiming they were the "Vicar of Christ" and
>pastor over the entire church.
>
They didn't set themselve up as a relgious leader but they did everything they could to crush religious worship in their countries.
>
>Nothing against Catholics. Just pointing out what I believe
>and why I will not be subject to the Pope.
You keep saying nothing against Catholics and then with the next breath that their leader is the anti-christ. Well that IS something against catholics. And while you might not act on it someone else who subscribed to your system might.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 5,860
Likes: 4
From: Metro Detroit (Redford)
GOD-cont'd
>>Nothing against Catholics. Just pointing out what I believe
>>and why I will not be subject to the Pope.
>
>You keep saying nothing against Catholics and then with the
>next breath that their leader is the anti-christ. Well that
>IS something against catholics. And while you might not act
>on it someone else who subscribed to your system might.
If someone wants to do violence, they will find whatever "excuse" they like. This could apply to many ideas put fourth on this site. However, your point is well taken and perhaps the best thing is to let this discussion die out. Regrettably I started it with a brief reference on the other thread trying to show that one could hold strong beliefs without mistreating people over those beliefs. Poor choice of examples. I offer my apologies to all Catholics and any others who are offended by what I have posted. That said I think it may be best to end this topic.
>>and why I will not be subject to the Pope.
>
>You keep saying nothing against Catholics and then with the
>next breath that their leader is the anti-christ. Well that
>IS something against catholics. And while you might not act
>on it someone else who subscribed to your system might.
If someone wants to do violence, they will find whatever "excuse" they like. This could apply to many ideas put fourth on this site. However, your point is well taken and perhaps the best thing is to let this discussion die out. Regrettably I started it with a brief reference on the other thread trying to show that one could hold strong beliefs without mistreating people over those beliefs. Poor choice of examples. I offer my apologies to all Catholics and any others who are offended by what I have posted. That said I think it may be best to end this topic.
Post Fiend
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 8
From: Missouri
GOD-cont'd
I'm not sure I believe the pope is the antichrist but you have a strong argument. That scripture says everything but the word pope. As long as your religeon doesn't have a negative impact on me then I am cool with it. I believe in freedom of religeon 100%. I don't believe in anyone telling anyone else they are going to hell though. I'm not anywhere near being that far up in the chain of command.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 6 Best Deals Available on New Fords & Lincolns Right Now
Brett Foote
This Hennessey Takes the Expedition Tremor's Off-Roading Capability to the Next Level
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 839
Likes: 0
From: Brooklyn
GOD-cont'd
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 31-Oct-02 AT 02:33 PM (EST)]I don't believe in anyone telling
>anyone else they are going to hell though. I'm not anywhere
>near being that far up in the chain of command.
Hey rat: From what I read on some of these posts, all hell is about to break loose anyway, so what the hell? I don't think we need to tell anyone to go to hell, it is almost here!
And if that is incorrect, well, like I said before, I am going back to my college and look for that woman. 
>anyone else they are going to hell though. I'm not anywhere
>near being that far up in the chain of command.
Hey rat: From what I read on some of these posts, all hell is about to break loose anyway, so what the hell? I don't think we need to tell anyone to go to hell, it is almost here!
And if that is incorrect, well, like I said before, I am going back to my college and look for that woman.
Senior User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
From: 5280 Feet
GOD-cont'd
>If someone wants to do violence, they will find whatever
>"excuse" they like. This could apply to many ideas put
>fourth on this site. However, your point is well taken and
>perhaps the best thing is to let this discussion die out.
>Regrettably I started it with a brief reference on the other
>thread trying to show that one could hold strong beliefs
>without mistreating people over those beliefs. Poor choice
>of examples. I offer my apologies to all Catholics and any
>others who are offended by what I have posted. That said I
>think it may be best to end this topic.
No matter what site I go to this conversation about this topic will always go south quick. Everyone has opinions, it's just that these opinions/beliefs are a S-load more sensitive. It's good to have strong debates about things, but this one always ends up this way. You are right about letting this thread sleep wit' da' fishes.
>"excuse" they like. This could apply to many ideas put
>fourth on this site. However, your point is well taken and
>perhaps the best thing is to let this discussion die out.
>Regrettably I started it with a brief reference on the other
>thread trying to show that one could hold strong beliefs
>without mistreating people over those beliefs. Poor choice
>of examples. I offer my apologies to all Catholics and any
>others who are offended by what I have posted. That said I
>think it may be best to end this topic.
No matter what site I go to this conversation about this topic will always go south quick. Everyone has opinions, it's just that these opinions/beliefs are a S-load more sensitive. It's good to have strong debates about things, but this one always ends up this way. You are right about letting this thread sleep wit' da' fishes.
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 839
Likes: 0
From: Brooklyn
GOD-cont'd
I offer my apologies to all Catholics and any
>>others who are offended by what I have posted. That said I
>>think it may be best to end this topic.
>
>No matter what site I go to this conversation about this
>topic will always go south quick. Everyone has opinions,
>it's just that these opinions/beliefs are a S-load more
>sensitive. It's good to have strong debates about things,
>but this one always ends up this way. You are right about
>letting this thread sleep wit' da' fishes.
Forden: You don't have to apologize for the ignorance of others. You posted a honest thought provoking thread. This is what forums are all about. Harry Truman said: "If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, then get out"! He just did'nt say it was hell's kitchen.
Hyporcrites, preacher wannabes, self-appointed prophets, and just plain confused people, all can make for insults, linked to stupid and callous remarks, when they think they have to defend their beliefs.
I for one, enjoy this type of banter because I know what I believe, am secure in what I believe, and don't try and push it upon anyone else. I find it fun, so don't apologize for how others may construe or misconstrue your ideas and remarks. This is a good thread and can develop some very interesting posts. Philosophy can indeed be intricate and deep, but some shallow and intolerable views can make for a banal outcome in the deadend street of ignorance.
Good Post
Brien
>>others who are offended by what I have posted. That said I
>>think it may be best to end this topic.
>
>No matter what site I go to this conversation about this
>topic will always go south quick. Everyone has opinions,
>it's just that these opinions/beliefs are a S-load more
>sensitive. It's good to have strong debates about things,
>but this one always ends up this way. You are right about
>letting this thread sleep wit' da' fishes.
Forden: You don't have to apologize for the ignorance of others. You posted a honest thought provoking thread. This is what forums are all about. Harry Truman said: "If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, then get out"! He just did'nt say it was hell's kitchen.
Hyporcrites, preacher wannabes, self-appointed prophets, and just plain confused people, all can make for insults, linked to stupid and callous remarks, when they think they have to defend their beliefs.
I for one, enjoy this type of banter because I know what I believe, am secure in what I believe, and don't try and push it upon anyone else. I find it fun, so don't apologize for how others may construe or misconstrue your ideas and remarks. This is a good thread and can develop some very interesting posts. Philosophy can indeed be intricate and deep, but some shallow and intolerable views can make for a banal outcome in the deadend street of ignorance.
Good Post
Brien
Junior User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
From: USA
GOD-cont'd
brienobrien I agree with you 100%,
nobody owes anyone else an apology because they are entitled to their opinion. I just wish that people would not try to pass off their opinion as fact and act as if they are informed on a religion by what they have heard from other people that are not part of that religion. I don't see how anyone who has actually paid attenton to how the pope works for world peace can actually call him the anti-christ. But like I said thats your opinion and you are entitled to it and you have no need to apologize for it.
The Roman Pontiff … enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, … he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.” (Item 891, page 256)
Yes the Pope CAN excercise his right of infalibility but only during certain cases,(in case you are wondering the current Pope has used this right twice and before that it had not been used for many many years) the rest of the time the Pope is as falable(sp?) as you or I, after all he is only human.
The lawlessness shows fourth in not being obedient to the Word of God. The Pope proclaims (supposedly infallibly) many doctrines in contradiction to the Word of God. For example, the same catechism states that “we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life” (Item 2027, page 545), but the Bible says in Ephesians 2 verses 9 and 9 “For it is by grace that ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” It is fine to work for world peace, but telling people they can work their own way into Heaven in contradiction to the clear gospel of Christ is a damning doctrine.
Catholics do not believe that you can work you way into heaven. I think you misinterpreted what the book said. Yes be belive works help, but we believe that works help because if you truly proclaim your belief in God then the works will come naturally because you are living your life in a way that follows God's example.
All Popes are the Antichrist by virtue of their office. The text indicates that the roots of the Papacy were already there in the Apostle Paul’s time (verse 7) and that the Antichrist will be around until Christ returns (verse 8).
I know someone already pointed this out but what about Peter? Was he the first anti-christ then?
Again if you really want to know what the catholic church is like go visit one with an open mind, I did this with other religions and now have a respect for them all, even though I do choose to remain Catholic.
nobody owes anyone else an apology because they are entitled to their opinion. I just wish that people would not try to pass off their opinion as fact and act as if they are informed on a religion by what they have heard from other people that are not part of that religion. I don't see how anyone who has actually paid attenton to how the pope works for world peace can actually call him the anti-christ. But like I said thats your opinion and you are entitled to it and you have no need to apologize for it.
The Roman Pontiff … enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, … he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.” (Item 891, page 256)
Yes the Pope CAN excercise his right of infalibility but only during certain cases,(in case you are wondering the current Pope has used this right twice and before that it had not been used for many many years) the rest of the time the Pope is as falable(sp?) as you or I, after all he is only human.
The lawlessness shows fourth in not being obedient to the Word of God. The Pope proclaims (supposedly infallibly) many doctrines in contradiction to the Word of God. For example, the same catechism states that “we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life” (Item 2027, page 545), but the Bible says in Ephesians 2 verses 9 and 9 “For it is by grace that ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” It is fine to work for world peace, but telling people they can work their own way into Heaven in contradiction to the clear gospel of Christ is a damning doctrine.
Catholics do not believe that you can work you way into heaven. I think you misinterpreted what the book said. Yes be belive works help, but we believe that works help because if you truly proclaim your belief in God then the works will come naturally because you are living your life in a way that follows God's example.
All Popes are the Antichrist by virtue of their office. The text indicates that the roots of the Papacy were already there in the Apostle Paul’s time (verse 7) and that the Antichrist will be around until Christ returns (verse 8).
I know someone already pointed this out but what about Peter? Was he the first anti-christ then?
Again if you really want to know what the catholic church is like go visit one with an open mind, I did this with other religions and now have a respect for them all, even though I do choose to remain Catholic.
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
GOD-cont'd
<snip>
>> I offer my apologies to all Catholics and any
>others who are offended by what I have posted. That said I
>think it may be best to end this topic.
Naw, no need to end the topic. It's just getting good. Actually I thought it was going well. As in a debate, you're not trying to convince the other person as much as state and defend your position as well as possible. Since this has not degenerated into a mud-slinging, name-calling fight I would call it a spirited and well reasonded debate. Maybe neither side changed their minds but both got their position out for others to ponder.
I was never offended and hope I haven't offended anyone else. Just hope to keep the discussion lively and interesting. If everyone agreed fully with one point of view then this board would be very BORING! Here we can offer differing opinions, discuss them and offer evidence to try and support our positions THAT is what keeps things interesting.
Now back to round 2!!!
>> I offer my apologies to all Catholics and any
>others who are offended by what I have posted. That said I
>think it may be best to end this topic.
Naw, no need to end the topic. It's just getting good. Actually I thought it was going well. As in a debate, you're not trying to convince the other person as much as state and defend your position as well as possible. Since this has not degenerated into a mud-slinging, name-calling fight I would call it a spirited and well reasonded debate. Maybe neither side changed their minds but both got their position out for others to ponder.
I was never offended and hope I haven't offended anyone else. Just hope to keep the discussion lively and interesting. If everyone agreed fully with one point of view then this board would be very BORING! Here we can offer differing opinions, discuss them and offer evidence to try and support our positions THAT is what keeps things interesting.
Now back to round 2!!!
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 839
Likes: 0
From: Brooklyn
GOD-cont'd
People are going to argue about the Pope from now until doomsday. Whether he speaks ex cathedra or not, this anti-christ business, etc.
I just want to know one thing about him. Where does he get that "POPEMOBILE" and is it powered by FORD?
I just want to know one thing about him. Where does he get that "POPEMOBILE" and is it powered by FORD?
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
GOD-cont'd
Ok, this may lead the discussion off on a tangent but I don't know if the moderators will go for 3 God discussions at one time.
What does it mean to not take the Lord's name in vain? Growing up I always though it meant that 2 word prhase your parents told you never to say. But I could never think of any other instance. I mean it seems pretty important if it has it's own commandment. How could 1 phrase be that bad? So what else could it (the commandment) mean?
What does it mean to not take the Lord's name in vain? Growing up I always though it meant that 2 word prhase your parents told you never to say. But I could never think of any other instance. I mean it seems pretty important if it has it's own commandment. How could 1 phrase be that bad? So what else could it (the commandment) mean?