BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I have no idea, did they live a good life? Did they die in a State of Grace?

Wow, you know who is going to heaven and who is going to Hell? You can make some real money with that skill...

Nobody can answer that question.

Baptism without Eucharist does not condemn someone to Hell. But, it does not grant them entrance either. It matters on the person's relationship with God and whether they ask for forgiveness. God' mercy is infinite, but you have to want to repent.

---

If you're saying no one can answer the question, then you're completely abandoning your own literal interpretation of Jesus in John chapter 6 upon which your view of the Real Presence is based on.

Do you not see the total IRONY here? You and your Catholic brethren spent pages and pages vehemently asserting the truth of the literal Real Presence.... and now that you're asked to commit to your belief by following it to its logical conclusion regarding the house of Cornelius, you bail and say "no one can answer that question".

See, this is why the RC view is untenable. It's why RC is full of doulble talking. If only you guys had the honesty to acknowledge it.

---

Easy answer. Based solely on your hypothetical, they died in a state of grace. Christ is literally present in the Eucharist, but communion is not an absolute necessity.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I have no idea, did they live a good life? Did they die in a State of Grace?

Wow, you know who is going to heaven and who is going to Hell? You can make some real money with that skill...

Nobody can answer that question.

Baptism without Eucharist does not condemn someone to Hell. But, it does not grant them entrance either. It matters on the person's relationship with God and whether they ask for forgiveness. God' mercy is infinite, but you have to want to repent.

---

If you're saying no one can answer the question, then you're completely abandoning your own literal interpretation of Jesus in John chapter 6 upon which your view of the Real Presence is based on.

Do you not see the total IRONY here? You and your Catholic brethren spent pages and pages vehemently asserting the truth of the literal Real Presence.... and now that you're asked to commit to your belief by following it to its logical conclusion regarding the house of Cornelius, you bail and say "no one can answer that question".

See, this is why the RC view is untenable. It's why RC is full of doulble talking. If only you guys had the honesty to acknowledge it.

---

Easy answer. Based solely on your hypothetical, they died in a state of grace. Christ is literally present in the Eucharist, but communion is not an absolute necessity.

---

I've already received your answer and thanked you for making my point that John chapter 6 can't be literal.

No, you are taking free will out of the equation. No one knows another persons soul.


You are saying you KNOW who is going to heaven and who is not?

What type of BS is that. He answered the question

What happened to you wanting a real discussion and this was not just a game of gottcha? You are so full of *****,

FLBear5630 said:

---

No, you are taking free will out of the equation. No one knows another persons soul.


You are saying you KNOW who is going to heaven and who is not?

---

You're still dodging. Everyone knows this.

FLBear5630 said:

---

What type of BS is that. He answered the question

What happened to you wanting a real discussion and this was not just a game of gottcha? You are so full of *****,

---

I acknowledged that he answered the question. And I also acknowledged that he made my point with his answer.

Can you not read?

You are dodging and didnt answer.

You know who is going to heaven?

FLBear5630 said:

---

You are dodging and didnt answer.

You know who is going to heaven?

---

I know what the Bible says about who's going to heaven. What I'm exposing is your lack of commitment to your own Church's view on that very topic (John chapter 6) even though you were fully committed to it in defense of your Church's view of the Real Presence.

Do you honestly think people are going to be distracted from the fact that you've been caught in a quandary by resorting to irrelevant diversions? Instead of playing games, why not just confront the truth of what has been revealed? You can't defend the literal intepretation of John chapter 6, the very basis for your view of the Real Presence, without also believing that the house of Cornelius was not saved even after believing the gospel, receiving the Holy Spirit, and being water baptized - which everyone knows is ridiculous. Your belief isn't tenable. The honest response would be to acknowledge it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Dude, I think it's time to come clean. Catholics don't believe any of what we think we do. We only believe what BTD tells us we do...and it's all WRONG.

I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

---

What am I saying that is wrong about what you believe as a Roman Catholic? You don't believe in the literal interpretation of John 6??

Oh, wait, I get it. You believe it when it supports your view of the Real Presence. But then, if being consistent with that belief forces you into being wrong about something else, then all of the sudden "you're telling us we believe something we don't".

Like I've always said - without non sequiturs and double talking, Roman Catholicism would be completely indefensible.

You are taking a personal relationship with God and how we treat our fellow man and turning it into an audit check list. I do not see God as an auditor. I feel closer to God in the Catholic Church. I cant reconcile a denomination based on a book written by Men 400 years after Christ lived.

I agree and disagree with dome parts of Catholicism. I disagree and agree with some parts of all religions. But you got to pick one, so i believe the RC is the original. If you think Eastern Rite is closer, i may go there.

FLBear5630 said:

---

You are taking a personal relationship with God and how we treat our fellow man and turning it into an audit check list. I do not see God as an auditor. I feel closer to God in the Catholic Church. I cant reconcile a denomination based on a book written by Men 400 years after Christ lived.

I agree and disagree with dome parts of Catholicism. I disagree and agree with some parts of all religions. But you got to pick one, so i believe the RC is the original. If you think Eastern Rite is closer, i may go there.

---

All/any religion is the greatest roadblock to knowing God.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Dude, I think it's time to come clean. Catholics don't believe any of what we think we do. We only believe what BTD tells us we do...and it's all WRONG.

I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

---

The difficult part is that it could easily be explained to him, but he is such a confrontational tool that nobody has the inclination or desire. Just like he went on for pages getting wrong the mechanism of receiving grace via Mass and Eucharist. And so he's just out there spewing things that don't register with us because he doesn't understand us. Instead he spews his digital hate that seems to consume him.

So, for everyone else's benefit, the reason Sam and every other Catholic in these threads is so reluctant to "follow this to its logical conclusion" and state someone is in hell is because, at least in a post-Vatican II world, saying some is or is not in hell is just a no go area for Catholics. The judgment of who is in hell or not belongs solely to the master and his servants are not about to claim for themselves what belongs to the master. This is ingrained into our theological culture in the same way that asking for the intercession of the saints is a no go for most Protestants.

Indeed, it typically takes the church years and years of meticulous investigation before the church is even willing to declare someone is definitely in Heaven as an official church position (canonized saints) and the bar is set pretty high (this process is not to suggest others are not in Heaven, merely that if the Church is going to officially affirm someone is in Heaven, then it requires rigor and it is not done haphazardly). It isn't ducking the question. It is quite simply respecting that that decision belongs to the master and not to us. Something about "judge not …" seems appropriate here. Notice it is one side happily declaring the other is condemned to hell, while the other side does not go anywhere near pronouncing such judgments.

I agree.

I actually agree with parts of all of the and look up to parts of all of them, including Judaism, Islam, and the Eastern thoughts.

I can't go or join all of them, so I worship with Catholic Church which I believe goes back to Peter. I believe the Apostles would be horrified at what the Protestant and Catholic Churches have become. I truly do not believe there is ANY denomination that is close to what Jesus started with the 12, man has *******ized it at various junctures, maybe with good intentions but still *******ized it. I believe too much following of the "text" is a road to ruin, understanding the tree, but missing the forest. .

Nice response...

" Notice it is one side happily declaring the other is condemned to hell, while the other side does not go anywhere near pronouncing such judgments."

While the 'other side' may use more polite words and avoid such specific condemnation, if you actually notice the claims made, the 'other side' is just as guilty of pride and arrogance.

Not trying to pretend my group is better than someone else, not trying to stoke even more angry bitterness, but it's a dangerous thing for any Christian to look down on other Christians, especially on details that do not concern Salvation.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doesn't change the truth. The RC clergy and the Protestant clergy are not much different. Sure they have areas they believe different facts, but the way they act, their motivations are the same.

Same with the congregations, there is no difference between a Protestant congregation and a Catholic one. Sure, titles and some processes, but same people. To say one is different than the other is folly.

We are there in Political Parties as well, just some different areas of interest. But, more of the same...

---

Without the Eucharist, it is really nothing. John 6:53

---

I agree with you. Salvation is through Jesus, his tools for us to reach salvation are the Sacraments.

Is there room for me to be wrong? Of course, I am human. Do I honestly believe that other denominations will be saved? Yes. But, I may not know it because they will be in their own little section that let's them believe they are the only ones in heaven.

---

all of us who were called, saved by grace through faith, and kept our eyes on Him until the end will be in Heaven. Which denomination means little.. its about the individual relationship with the Father and Jesus Christ.

Depart from me, I never "knew" you.. when you meet somebody, you talk with them to get to know them. The more you talk, the more you understand and the closer you become with them.

I do believe denomination means little. They are all F-ed up.

"Not trying to pretend my group is better than someone else, not trying to stoke even more angry bitterness, but it's a dangerous thing for any Christian to look down on other Christians, especially on details that do not concern
Salvation."



Well said.

FLBear5630 said:

---

You are taking a personal relationship with God and how we treat our fellow man and turning it into an audit check list. I do not see God as an auditor. I feel closer to God in the Catholic Church. I cant reconcile a denomination based on a book written by Men 400 years after Christ lived.

---

I'm challenging your literal interpretation of John 6 upon which your view of the Real Presence is based. The fact that you won't/can't carry it to its logical (and biblical, at least in your view) conclusion is showing that you understand that your belief in the literal interpretation is untenable. Many of you are trying to lash out at me in lieu of confronting this. But the problem isn't me, it's in your church's view that you unquestionably accepted. I'm asking for Roman Catholics to just be honest here.

Treating salvation as an "audit check list" to be fulfilled is exactly how Roman Catholicism presents the sacraments. If you don't believe this, then what are doing in Catholicism?

You: "I can't reconcile a denomination based on a book written by Men 400 years after Christ lived".

^^^ It is glaringly obvious that you aren't really a Christian. You are merely defending your church as your tribe and identity, you're not defending the truth. I'm looking for Roman Catholics who care about what's true. Haven't encountered one in this forum yet.

Quote:

---

The difficult part is that it could easily be explained to him, but he is such a confrontational tool that nobody has the inclination or desire.

---

Translation: "I CAN'T explain it to him. He's got a point, but I can't let him know that, so I'll pretend that the problem is with him rather than with us Catholics".

Roman Catholics, try me. Explain it to me. If you could explain it to me, you would have. It's not like you guys have been shying away from by "confrontation" in this thread. Responses like the one above that use ad hominem to avoid having to answer the question is dishonest and pointless. I particularly find it humorous when someone gives a really long response explaining how something could be explained, but never bothers to actually explain it. Everyone knows this is a cop out.

The problem isn't with me, no matter how hard you try to present it that way. The problem is the glaring inconsistency in your view about salvation (pretty important). God's truth is never inconsistent. If you guys really are true Christians, you'd care about what's true. So ask yourself how the literal interpretation of "eating Jesus' flesh" can be true, if it would mean that someone just like those in the house of Cornelius, who hears the gospel and believes, receives the Holy Spirit, and is water baptized but does NOT take the Eucharist is still not saved, and thus would go to Hell if he died right after. Be honest. That's all I'm really asking.

Thanks FLBear. Sad so many people find easier to see enemies where they should see friends.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

The difficult part is that it could easily be explained to him, but he is such a confrontational tool that nobody has the inclination or desire.

---

Translation: "I CAN'T explain it to him. He's got a point, but I can't let him know that, so I'll pretend that the problem is with him rather than with us Catholics".

Roman Catholics, try me. Explain it to me. If you could explain it to me, you would have. It's not like you guys have been shying away from by "confrontation" in this thread. Responses like the one above that use ad hominem to avoid having to answer the question is dishonest and pointless. I particularly find it humorous when someone gives a really long response explaining how something could be explained, but never bothers to actually explain it. Everyone knows this is a cop out.

The problem isn't with me, no matter how hard you try to present it that way. The problem is the glaring inconsistency in your view about salvation (pretty important). God's truth is never inconsistent. If you guys really are true Christians, you'd care about what's true. So ask yourself how the literal interpretation of "eating Jesus' flesh" can be true, if it would mean that someone just like those in the house of Cornelius, who hears the gospel and believes, receives the Holy Spirit, and is water baptized but does NOT take the Eucharist is still not saved, and thus would go to Hell if he died right after. Be honest. That's all I'm really asking.

---

When you have to "translate" someone else's words into a completely different meaning, that is bad faith and not worthy of dignified response. When you then proceed to attack that completely different meaning, it is called a straw man argument.

If one wants to sit on the King's chair and pronounce His eternal judgment, that is one's prerogative. You will, however, have a hard time getting a Catholic to sit on that chair with you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Notice it is one side happily declaring the other is condemned to hell, while the other side does not go anywhere near pronouncing such judgments."

While the 'other side' may use more polite words and avoid such specific condemnation, if you actually notice the claims made, the 'other side' is just as guilty of pride and arrogance.

Not trying to pretend my group is better than someone else, not trying to stoke even more angry bitterness, but it's a dangerous thing for any Christian to look down on other Christians, especially on details that do not concern Salvation.

---

If your point is that we all have planks in our eyes; then of course, that is true and fair. I am a sinner.

But on this particular issue of gleeful taking on the role of eternal judge, well, one side in particular likes to play that part and the other does not. You are more likely to travel to Mexico City and pray a rosary in honor of Guadalupe than I am to suggest any one specified person is in hell. Just not part of my theological vernacular. That determination belongs to the Lord and to the Lord alone.

Pope Francis caused a mini-stir toward the end of his pontificate when he said he likes to think that hell is empty. He was exceedingly clear that he was not speaking about the faith or dogma, but just his personal hope.

If the Pope is willing to state that, then it should give you an idea why Catholics stay away from the question of who is in hell.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks FLBear. Sad so many people find easier to see enemies where they should see friends.

---

A friend is someone who tells the uncomfortable but necessary truth to those in danger. An enemy is one who quietly watches them go to their demise, even encouraging their path.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

The difficult part is that it could easily be explained to him, but he is such a confrontational tool that nobody has the inclination or desire.

---

Translation: "I CAN'T explain it to him. He's got a point, but I can't let him know that, so I'll pretend that the problem is with him rather than with us Catholics".

Roman Catholics, try me. Explain it to me. If you could explain it to me, you would have. It's not like you guys have been shying away from by "confrontation" in this thread. Responses like the one above that use ad hominem to avoid having to answer the question is dishonest and pointless. I particularly find it humorous when someone gives a really long response explaining how something could be explained, but never bothers to actually explain it. Everyone knows this is a cop out.

The problem isn't with me, no matter how hard you try to present it that way. The problem is the glaring inconsistency in your view about salvation (pretty important). God's truth is never inconsistent. If you guys really are true Christians, you'd care about what's true. So ask yourself how the literal interpretation of "eating Jesus' flesh" can be true, if it would mean that someone just like those in the house of Cornelius, who hears the gospel and believes, receives the Holy Spirit, and is water baptized but does NOT take the Eucharist is still not saved, and thus would go to Hell if he died right after. Be honest. That's all I'm really asking.

---

When you have to "translate" someone else's words into a completely different meaning, that is bad faith and not worthy of dignified response. When you then proceed to attack that completely different meaning, it is called a straw man argument.

If one wants to sit on the King's chair and pronounce His eternal judgment, that is one's prerogative. You will, however, have a hard time getting a Catholic to sit on that chair with you.

---

^^^ Roman Catholics, this is how NOT to be honest.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

The difficult part is that it could easily be explained to him, but he is such a confrontational tool that nobody has the inclination or desire.

---

Translation: "I CAN'T explain it to him. He's got a point, but I can't let him know that, so I'll pretend that the problem is with him rather than with us Catholics".

Roman Catholics, try me. Explain it to me. If you could explain it to me, you would have. It's not like you guys have been shying away from by "confrontation" in this thread. Responses like the one above that use ad hominem to avoid having to answer the question is dishonest and pointless. I particularly find it humorous when someone gives a really long response explaining how something could be explained, but never bothers to actually explain it. Everyone knows this is a cop out.

The problem isn't with me, no matter how hard you try to present it that way. The problem is the glaring inconsistency in your view about salvation (pretty important). God's truth is never inconsistent. If you guys really are true Christians, you'd care about what's true. So ask yourself how the literal interpretation of "eating Jesus' flesh" can be true, if it would mean that someone just like those in the house of Cornelius, who hears the gospel and believes, receives the Holy Spirit, and is water baptized but does NOT take the Eucharist is still not saved, and thus would go to Hell if he died right after. Be honest. That's all I'm really asking.

---

When you have to "translate" someone else's words into a completely different meaning, that is bad faith and not worthy of dignified response. When you then proceed to attack that completely different meaning, it is called a straw man argument.

If one wants to sit on the King's chair and pronounce His eternal judgment, that is one's prerogative. You will, however, have a hard time getting a Catholic to sit on that chair with you.

---

^^^ Roman Catholics, this is how NOT to be honest.

---

The guy who intentionally "translates" other people's words into a completely different meaning is now worried about honesty. How cute.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Notice it is one side happily declaring the other is condemned to hell, while the other side does not go anywhere near pronouncing such judgments."

While the 'other side' may use more polite words and avoid such specific condemnation, if you actually notice the claims made, the 'other side' is just as guilty of pride and arrogance.

Not trying to pretend my group is better than someone else, not trying to stoke even more angry bitterness, but it's a dangerous thing for any Christian to look down on other Christians, especially on details that do not concern Salvation.

---

But on this particular issue of gleeful taking on the role of eternal judge, well, one side in particular likes to play that part and the other does not. You are more likely to travel to Mexico City and pray a rosary in honor of Guadalupe than I am to suggest any one specified person is in hell. Just not part of my theological vernacular. That determination belongs to the Lord and to the Lord alone.

---

No one is gleeful about this. That's just your attempt, yet again, to divert away from the real problem which is your view. The simple fact is that if you believe the meaning of Jesus' words: "you must eat my flesh or you have no life in you" is literal, but then believe that someone who doesn't literally eat his flesh (Eucharist) can have life in them, then you're calling Jesus a liar.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

The difficult part is that it could easily be explained to him, but he is such a confrontational tool that nobody has the inclination or desire.

---

Translation: "I CAN'T explain it to him. He's got a point, but I can't let him know that, so I'll pretend that the problem is with him rather than with us Catholics".

Roman Catholics, try me. Explain it to me. If you could explain it to me, you would have. It's not like you guys have been shying away from by "confrontation" in this thread. Responses like the one above that use ad hominem to avoid having to answer the question is dishonest and pointless. I particularly find it humorous when someone gives a really long response explaining how something could be explained, but never bothers to actually explain it. Everyone knows this is a cop out.

The problem isn't with me, no matter how hard you try to present it that way. The problem is the glaring inconsistency in your view about salvation (pretty important). God's truth is never inconsistent. If you guys really are true Christians, you'd care about what's true. So ask yourself how the literal interpretation of "eating Jesus' flesh" can be true, if it would mean that someone just like those in the house of Cornelius, who hears the gospel and believes, receives the Holy Spirit, and is water baptized but does NOT take the Eucharist is still not saved, and thus would go to Hell if he died right after. Be honest. That's all I'm really asking.

---

When you have to "translate" someone else's words into a completely different meaning, that is bad faith and not worthy of dignified response. When you then proceed to attack that completely different meaning, it is called a straw man argument.

If one wants to sit on the King's chair and pronounce His eternal judgment, that is one's prerogative. You will, however, have a hard time getting a Catholic to sit on that chair with you.

---

^^^ Roman Catholics, this is how NOT to be honest.

---

The guy who intentionally "translates" other people's words into a completely different meaning is now worried about honesty. How cute.

---

You are continually proving my "translation" to be correct.

Just because I or someone else worships differently, it does not make them non-Christians.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Notice it is one side happily declaring the other is condemned to hell, while the other side does not go anywhere near pronouncing such judgments."

While the 'other side' may use more polite words and avoid such specific condemnation, if you actually notice the claims made, the 'other side' is just as guilty of pride and arrogance.

Not trying to pretend my group is better than someone else, not trying to stoke even more angry bitterness, but it's a dangerous thing for any Christian to look down on other Christians, especially on details that do not concern Salvation.

---

But on this particular issue of gleeful taking on the role of eternal judge, well, one side in particular likes to play that part and the other does not. You are more likely to travel to Mexico City and pray a rosary in honor of Guadalupe than I am to suggest any one specified person is in hell. Just not part of my theological vernacular. That determination belongs to the Lord and to the Lord alone.

---

No one is gleeful about this. That's just your attempt, yet again, to divert away from the real problem which is your view. The simple fact is that if you believe the meaning of Jesus' words: "you must eat my flesh or you have no life in you" is literal, but then believe that someone who doesn't literally eat his flesh (Eucharist) can have life in them, then you're calling Jesus a liar.

---

Is it your position that you *KNOW* someone is in, or is bound, for Hell? You know that with 100% certainty?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Just because I or someone else worships differently, it does not make them non-Christians.

---

The beliefs that are behind the worship can make someone a non-Christian.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Notice it is one side happily declaring the other is condemned to hell, while the other side does not go anywhere near pronouncing such judgments."

While the 'other side' may use more polite words and avoid such specific condemnation, if you actually notice the claims made, the 'other side' is just as guilty of pride and arrogance.

Not trying to pretend my group is better than someone else, not trying to stoke even more angry bitterness, but it's a dangerous thing for any Christian to look down on other Christians, especially on details that do not concern Salvation.

---

But on this particular issue of gleeful taking on the role of eternal judge, well, one side in particular likes to play that part and the other does not. You are more likely to travel to Mexico City and pray a rosary in honor of Guadalupe than I am to suggest any one specified person is in hell. Just not part of my theological vernacular. That determination belongs to the Lord and to the Lord alone.

---

No one is gleeful about this. That's just your attempt, yet again, to divert away from the real problem which is your view. The simple fact is that if you believe the meaning of Jesus' words: "you must eat my flesh or you have no life in you" is literal, but then believe that someone who doesn't literally eat his flesh (Eucharist) can have life in them, then you're calling Jesus a liar.

---

Is it your position that you *KNOW* someone is in, or is bound, for Hell? You know that with 100% certainty?

---

No. You are distracting yourself from the point - do YOU believe Jesus, when he says that those who don't "eat his flesh" have no life in them? And that if they die in that state, it means they are not in heaven?

What makes someone a Christian?
Baptism,
Communal meeting
Believe Christ is true God,
Believe in the trinity
Believe Christ died and rose from the dead
Faith salvation is through Christ
Repentance
Love of God and others

Catholic and the other Catholic denominations meet the requirements. The rest is style.

FLBear5630 said:

---

What makes someone a Christian?
Baptism,
Communal meeting
Believe Christ is true God,
Believe in the trinity
Believe Christ died and rose from the dead
Faith salvation is through Christ
Repentance
Love of God and others

Catholic and the other Catholic denominations meet the requirements. The rest is style.

---

Isn't this the sort of "audit check list" that you decried moments ago?