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.
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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
You forgot Pharisee, bully, angry and full of spite, son of Satan - I've been called all this and more....
...but am I right?
FLBear5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
You forgot Pharisee, bully, angry and full of spite, son of Satan - I've been called all this and more....
...but am I right?
No, you aren't. And you have been shown numerous times. Your response is I don't agree. You do not have honest conversations, they are gottcha traps or you just ignore and say the person, the Vatican, the religious order is wrong.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
You forgot Pharisee, bully, angry and full of spite, son of Satan - I've been called all this and more....
...but am I right?
DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
You forgot Pharisee, bully, angry and full of spite, son of Satan - I've been called all this and more....
...but am I right?
I don't know any of that other stuff.
Whether you are right or not is up to Jesus.
From my perspective, the more relevant question is whether one is making disciples or not.
We are sowers of seeds, witnesses of the peace of Christ, doers of the WordDallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
You forgot Pharisee, bully, angry and full of spite, son of Satan - I've been called all this and more....
...but am I right?
I don't know any of that other stuff.
Whether you are right or not is up to Jesus.
From my perspective, the more relevant question is whether one is making disciples or not.
DallasBear9902 said:
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.
Realitybites said:DallasBear9902 said:
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.
That's an exceedingly generous take on Pope Francis' words considering he clarified his belief (or lack thereof) about hell in an interview with an italian journalist:
"Scalfari, an atheist who struck up a friendship with Francis in 2013...asked the pope where "bad souls" go, to which he was quoted as responding: "They are not punished. Those who repent obtain God's forgiveness and take their place among the ranks of those who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot be forgiven disappear. A hell doesn't exist, the disappearance of sinning souls exists."
I know Roman Catholics are sort of bound to defend whoever occupies the papal office at any given time, but can we at least be honest and get to the place where we say that Francis was a South American Liberation Theologist who did not believe many of the teachings of Roman Catholicism?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
You forgot Pharisee, bully, angry and full of spite, son of Satan - I've been called all this and more....
...but am I right?
I don't know any of that other stuff.
Whether you are right or not is up to Jesus.
From my perspective, the more relevant question is whether one is making disciples or not.
Making disciples into what, though? A false belief system?
You shouldn't just punt the question of whether I'm right to Jesus. It's your own eternal fate at stake here, not Jesus' nor anyone else's. Plus if you know there's something wrong with your belief on salvation, why would you think it's a good idea to make disciples into the same error? Shouldn't you get it straight for yourself first?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
TOTAL dodge.
Answer the question, please. Again - if the house of Cornelius died right after hearing the gospel, believing, receiving the Holy Spirit, and being water baptized, do they go to heaven or Hell in light of your church's literal interpretation of John 6?
FLBear5630 said:
What mistake?
Let's stick with check list for simplicity. We all seem to agree on these points, the particulars may diffee, but we all agree in the end. So why complicate with man made ***** You preach these things, you are preaching Chritianity.
Core Theological Beliefs
The Trinity: Belief in one God existing in three persons.
The Deity of Christ: The belief that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human.
Atonement: The belief that Jesus's death and resurrection serve as the payment for humanity's sins, offering salvation to those who believe
Personal Faith and Repentance
Faith: Trusting in Jesus and his sacrifice
Repentance: Acknowledging one's personal flaws and sins, and actively turning away from them toward God.
Outward Expression and Practice
Baptism: Public declaration of a person's inward faith and inclusion into the Christian community.
Adherence to Jesus's Teachings: Striving to live according to Christ's central commandments, which are to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself.
DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
You forgot Pharisee, bully, angry and full of spite, son of Satan - I've been called all this and more....
...but am I right?
I don't know any of that other stuff.
Whether you are right or not is up to Jesus.
From my perspective, the more relevant question is whether one is making disciples or not.
Making disciples into what, though? A false belief system?
You shouldn't just punt the question of whether I'm right to Jesus. It's your own eternal fate at stake here, not Jesus' nor anyone else's. Plus if you know there's something wrong with your belief on salvation, why would you think it's a good idea to make disciples into the same error? Shouldn't you get it straight for yourself first?
Are you making disciples in what you believe? You and I can disagree about theological matters. Your beliefs are irrelevant to my apostolate and vice versa. Sure, you can point at me and accuse of me of propagating a false teaching (and vice versa), but that doesn't obviate my obligation to go make disciples.
If one (you or me) is failing to make disciples in Jesus (in whatever Christian theological system one believes in) then going back and forth about the theology is falling short of the real goal.
I know that after my own wife and children, nothing matters more to me than the handful of people I have walked with and sponsored into baptism in the Church. I hope to do more of it before I die.
Coke Bear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
TOTAL dodge.
Answer the question, please. Again - if the house of Cornelius died right after hearing the gospel, believing, receiving the Holy Spirit, and being water baptized, do they go to heaven or Hell in light of your church's literal interpretation of John 6?
It is not a dodge. The story never addresses whether they received the Eucharist or not.
Your gotcha question, it's the kryptonite that you think that it is. It's fool's gold.
It's also a complete misunderstanding of theology. This is way that OSAS doctrine is also false. One can never be sure that they were ever saved by your reasoning.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
You forgot Pharisee, bully, angry and full of spite, son of Satan - I've been called all this and more....
...but am I right?
I don't know any of that other stuff.
Whether you are right or not is up to Jesus.
From my perspective, the more relevant question is whether one is making disciples or not.
Making disciples into what, though? A false belief system?
You shouldn't just punt the question of whether I'm right to Jesus. It's your own eternal fate at stake here, not Jesus' nor anyone else's. Plus if you know there's something wrong with your belief on salvation, why would you think it's a good idea to make disciples into the same error? Shouldn't you get it straight for yourself first?
Are you making disciples in what you believe? You and I can disagree about theological matters. Your beliefs are irrelevant to my apostolate and vice versa. Sure, you can point at me and accuse of me of propagating a false teaching (and vice versa), but that doesn't obviate my obligation to go make disciples.
If one (you or me) is failing to make disciples in Jesus (in whatever Christian theological system one believes in) then going back and forth about the theology is falling short of the real goal.
I know that after my own wife and children, nothing matters more to me than the handful of people I have walked with and sponsored into baptism in the Church. I hope to do more of it before I die.
Again- if you can't even resolve the glaring problem in your view that has been exposed here, then how can you feel you're in the position to disciple anyone? What are you going to disciple them into? Disciple them into the practice of personally attacking other people when they can't refute their arguments, like you do?
DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
You forgot Pharisee, bully, angry and full of spite, son of Satan - I've been called all this and more....
...but am I right?
I don't know any of that other stuff.
Whether you are right or not is up to Jesus.
From my perspective, the more relevant question is whether one is making disciples or not.
Making disciples into what, though? A false belief system?
You shouldn't just punt the question of whether I'm right to Jesus. It's your own eternal fate at stake here, not Jesus' nor anyone else's. Plus if you know there's something wrong with your belief on salvation, why would you think it's a good idea to make disciples into the same error? Shouldn't you get it straight for yourself first?
Are you making disciples in what you believe? You and I can disagree about theological matters. Your beliefs are irrelevant to my apostolate and vice versa. Sure, you can point at me and accuse of me of propagating a false teaching (and vice versa), but that doesn't obviate my obligation to go make disciples.
If one (you or me) is failing to make disciples in Jesus (in whatever Christian theological system one believes in) then going back and forth about the theology is falling short of the real goal.
I know that after my own wife and children, nothing matters more to me than the handful of people I have walked with and sponsored into baptism in the Church. I hope to do more of it before I die.
Again- if you can't even resolve the glaring problem in your view that has been exposed here, then how can you feel you're in the position to disciple anyone? What are you going to disciple them into? Disciple them into the practice of personally attacking other people when they can't refute their arguments, like you do?
If your self-congratulatory, pat-yourself-on-the-back, needlessly confrontational methods aren't discipling anyone, then what is the point? You arrogantly made crystal clear that you value being right as you see it above respectful dialogue that actually has the potential to change hearts.
Nobody has agreed that you have created a glaring problem in their view. You live in a strange world where (presumably) educated people tell you they don't agree with you yet you still know deep down inside what they actually believe and that they secretly agree with you. Seriously, what's the point of living in your fantasy land where you enjoy some kind of self-granted prophetic powers to know what others truly believe and know?
I can just see it now:
Now after a long time the master came and settled accounts.
One servant told him about building schools and hospitals for the poor.
The second servant fed the hungry and brought others to the Lord.
The third one told the master how he pointed out that the other two were wrong and that they didn't actually believe what they claimed they believed.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
You forgot Pharisee, bully, angry and full of spite, son of Satan - I've been called all this and more....
...but am I right?
I don't know any of that other stuff.
Whether you are right or not is up to Jesus.
From my perspective, the more relevant question is whether one is making disciples or not.
Making disciples into what, though? A false belief system?
You shouldn't just punt the question of whether I'm right to Jesus. It's your own eternal fate at stake here, not Jesus' nor anyone else's. Plus if you know there's something wrong with your belief on salvation, why would you think it's a good idea to make disciples into the same error? Shouldn't you get it straight for yourself first?
Are you making disciples in what you believe? You and I can disagree about theological matters. Your beliefs are irrelevant to my apostolate and vice versa. Sure, you can point at me and accuse of me of propagating a false teaching (and vice versa), but that doesn't obviate my obligation to go make disciples.
If one (you or me) is failing to make disciples in Jesus (in whatever Christian theological system one believes in) then going back and forth about the theology is falling short of the real goal.
I know that after my own wife and children, nothing matters more to me than the handful of people I have walked with and sponsored into baptism in the Church. I hope to do more of it before I die.
Again- if you can't even resolve the glaring problem in your view that has been exposed here, then how can you feel you're in the position to disciple anyone? What are you going to disciple them into? Disciple them into the practice of personally attacking other people when they can't refute their arguments, like you do?
If your self-congratulatory, pat-yourself-on-the-back, needlessly confrontational methods aren't discipling anyone, then what is the point? You arrogantly made crystal clear that you value being right as you see it above respectful dialogue that actually has the potential to change hearts.
Nobody has agreed that you have created a glaring problem in their view. You live in a strange world where (presumably) educated people tell you they don't agree with you yet you still know deep down inside what they actually believe and that they secretly agree with you. Seriously, what's the point of living in your fantasy land where you enjoy some kind of self-granted prophetic powers to know what others truly believe and know?
I can just see it now:
Now after a long time the master came and settled accounts.
One servant told him about building schools and hospitals for the poor.
The second servant fed the hungry and brought others to the Lord.
The third one told the master how he pointed out that the other two were wrong and that they didn't actually believe what they claimed they believed.
Based on your reaction in this thread, it's quite clear I've made the point with you.
Discipleship involves correction of errant beliefs.
I can see it now too: "Lord, lord, didn't we build schools and hospitals in your name, and fed the hungry in your name, and brought them to you? Jesus - "But you yourself denied my sufficient, once-for-all-time sacrifice and you seek Mary, not me. And you did NOT lead anyone not to me, you prevented them from coming to me by putting stumbling blocks in front of them with your false religion. And you insulted and dismissed those I sent to correct you. Depart from me".
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:
What mistake?
Let's stick with check list for simplicity. We all seem to agree on these points, the particulars may diffee, but we all agree in the end. So why complicate with man made ***** You preach these things, you are preaching Chritianity.
Core Theological Beliefs
The Trinity: Belief in one God existing in three persons.
The Deity of Christ: The belief that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human.
Atonement: The belief that Jesus's death and resurrection serve as the payment for humanity's sins, offering salvation to those who believe
Personal Faith and Repentance
Faith: Trusting in Jesus and his sacrifice
Repentance: Acknowledging one's personal flaws and sins, and actively turning away from them toward God.
Outward Expression and Practice
Baptism: Public declaration of a person's inward faith and inclusion into the Christian community.
Adherence to Jesus's Teachings: Striving to live according to Christ's central commandments, which are to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself.
Roman Catholics differ in the issues of justification, atonement, and salvation itself. Issues such as the mass and purgatory are denying the sufficiency and once-for-all time sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Roman Catholicism engages in Marian idolatry, elevating her to the level of Jesus, and even encouraging the belief that salvation can only be obtained through her. Praying to Mary and the saints and bowing to their statues is sheer idolatry. RC insists on papal and councilar infallibility and therefore rejects sola scriptura.
If you truly believe we are following the same "Christianity", then you just aren't very aware, nor have you been paying any attention in these threads.
DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
You forgot Pharisee, bully, angry and full of spite, son of Satan - I've been called all this and more....
...but am I right?
I don't know any of that other stuff.
Whether you are right or not is up to Jesus.
From my perspective, the more relevant question is whether one is making disciples or not.
Making disciples into what, though? A false belief system?
You shouldn't just punt the question of whether I'm right to Jesus. It's your own eternal fate at stake here, not Jesus' nor anyone else's. Plus if you know there's something wrong with your belief on salvation, why would you think it's a good idea to make disciples into the same error? Shouldn't you get it straight for yourself first?
Are you making disciples in what you believe? You and I can disagree about theological matters. Your beliefs are irrelevant to my apostolate and vice versa. Sure, you can point at me and accuse of me of propagating a false teaching (and vice versa), but that doesn't obviate my obligation to go make disciples.
If one (you or me) is failing to make disciples in Jesus (in whatever Christian theological system one believes in) then going back and forth about the theology is falling short of the real goal.
I know that after my own wife and children, nothing matters more to me than the handful of people I have walked with and sponsored into baptism in the Church. I hope to do more of it before I die.
Again- if you can't even resolve the glaring problem in your view that has been exposed here, then how can you feel you're in the position to disciple anyone? What are you going to disciple them into? Disciple them into the practice of personally attacking other people when they can't refute their arguments, like you do?
I can just see it now:
Now after a long time the master came and settled accounts.
One servant told him about building schools and hospitals for the poor.
The second servant fed the hungry and brought others to the Lord.
The third one told the master how he pointed out that the other two were wrong and that they didn't actually believe what they claimed they believed.
DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
You forgot Pharisee, bully, angry and full of spite, son of Satan - I've been called all this and more....
...but am I right?
I don't know any of that other stuff.
Whether you are right or not is up to Jesus.
From my perspective, the more relevant question is whether one is making disciples or not.
Making disciples into what, though? A false belief system?
You shouldn't just punt the question of whether I'm right to Jesus. It's your own eternal fate at stake here, not Jesus' nor anyone else's. Plus if you know there's something wrong with your belief on salvation, why would you think it's a good idea to make disciples into the same error? Shouldn't you get it straight for yourself first?
Are you making disciples in what you believe? You and I can disagree about theological matters. Your beliefs are irrelevant to my apostolate and vice versa. Sure, you can point at me and accuse of me of propagating a false teaching (and vice versa), but that doesn't obviate my obligation to go make disciples.
If one (you or me) is failing to make disciples in Jesus (in whatever Christian theological system one believes in) then going back and forth about the theology is falling short of the real goal.
I know that after my own wife and children, nothing matters more to me than the handful of people I have walked with and sponsored into baptism in the Church. I hope to do more of it before I die.
Again- if you can't even resolve the glaring problem in your view that has been exposed here, then how can you feel you're in the position to disciple anyone? What are you going to disciple them into? Disciple them into the practice of personally attacking other people when they can't refute their arguments, like you do?
If your self-congratulatory, pat-yourself-on-the-back, needlessly confrontational methods aren't discipling anyone, then what is the point? You arrogantly made crystal clear that you value being right as you see it above respectful dialogue that actually has the potential to change hearts.
Nobody has agreed that you have created a glaring problem in their view. You live in a strange world where (presumably) educated people tell you they don't agree with you yet you still know deep down inside what they actually believe and that they secretly agree with you. Seriously, what's the point of living in your fantasy land where you enjoy some kind of self-granted prophetic powers to know what others truly believe and know?
I can just see it now:
Now after a long time the master came and settled accounts.
One servant told him about building schools and hospitals for the poor.
The second servant fed the hungry and brought others to the Lord.
The third one told the master how he pointed out that the other two were wrong and that they didn't actually believe what they claimed they believed.
Based on your reaction in this thread, it's quite clear I've made the point with you.
Discipleship involves correction of errant beliefs.
I can see it now too: "Lord, lord, didn't we build schools and hospitals in your name, and fed the hungry in your name, and brought them to you? Jesus - "But you yourself denied my sufficient, once-for-all-time sacrifice and you seek Mary, not me. And you did NOT lead anyone not to me, you prevented them from coming to me by putting stumbling blocks in front of them with your false religion. And you insulted and dismissed those I sent to correct you. Depart from me".
Why are you dodging the questions? Once again, in case you missed it:
If your self-congratulatory, pat-yourself-on-the-back, needlessly confrontational methods aren't discipling anyone, then what is the point?
Seriously, what's the point of living in your fantasy land where you enjoy some kind of self-granted prophetic powers to know what others truly believe and know?
FLBear5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:FLBear5630 said:
What mistake?
Let's stick with check list for simplicity. We all seem to agree on these points, the particulars may diffee, but we all agree in the end. So why complicate with man made ***** You preach these things, you are preaching Chritianity.
Core Theological Beliefs
The Trinity: Belief in one God existing in three persons.
The Deity of Christ: The belief that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine and fully human.
Atonement: The belief that Jesus's death and resurrection serve as the payment for humanity's sins, offering salvation to those who believe
Personal Faith and Repentance
Faith: Trusting in Jesus and his sacrifice
Repentance: Acknowledging one's personal flaws and sins, and actively turning away from them toward God.
Outward Expression and Practice
Baptism: Public declaration of a person's inward faith and inclusion into the Christian community.
Adherence to Jesus's Teachings: Striving to live according to Christ's central commandments, which are to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself.
Roman Catholics differ in the issues of justification, atonement, and salvation itself. Issues such as the mass and purgatory are denying the sufficiency and once-for-all time sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Roman Catholicism engages in Marian idolatry, elevating her to the level of Jesus, and even encouraging the belief that salvation can only be obtained through her. Praying to Mary and the saints and bowing to their statues is sheer idolatry. RC insists on papal and councilar infallibility and therefore rejects sola scriptura.
If you truly believe we are following the same "Christianity", then you just aren't very aware, nor have you been paying any attention in these threads.
I just don't think those things matter as much as you think.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:DallasBear9902 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.
You are gleeful and certain about your proclamations that certain of God's children will be in hell. If you sincerely believe you are not, then perhaps reflect on why your communication style conveys it.
How strange that just moments ago you chided me for purporting to know who's going to Hell, and here you are judging other people's hearts.
As for how I'm communicating - might I suggest that the truths being addressed are making you uncomfortable, so you're merely projecting "gleefulness" as a defense mechanism? And regardless, like I've been telling you repeatedly, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're trying to make this about me, when a big gaping hole has been exposed in your own beliefs. My "gleefulness" or whatever, has no bearing on your eternal life. Shouldn't you be more concerned about whether your beliefs about salvation are actually true?
Faux politeness
Amateur psychoanalysis
Implied superiority
Claimed rationality
Accusing others of being slow to understand
Rejection of other's agency
Scare quotes to avoid the subject matter
Authority to determine what really matters
Faux concern
All of that in just six sentences. And then you wonder why your message doesn't seem to get through to the people you are trying to communicate with.
A more humble man would examine why it isn't working for him. But I've got a feeling that you are just going to keep doubling down....
You forgot Pharisee, bully, angry and full of spite, son of Satan - I've been called all this and more....
...but am I right?
I don't know any of that other stuff.
Whether you are right or not is up to Jesus.
From my perspective, the more relevant question is whether one is making disciples or not.
Making disciples into what, though? A false belief system?
You shouldn't just punt the question of whether I'm right to Jesus. It's your own eternal fate at stake here, not Jesus' nor anyone else's. Plus if you know there's something wrong with your belief on salvation, why would you think it's a good idea to make disciples into the same error? Shouldn't you get it straight for yourself first?
Are you making disciples in what you believe? You and I can disagree about theological matters. Your beliefs are irrelevant to my apostolate and vice versa. Sure, you can point at me and accuse of me of propagating a false teaching (and vice versa), but that doesn't obviate my obligation to go make disciples.
If one (you or me) is failing to make disciples in Jesus (in whatever Christian theological system one believes in) then going back and forth about the theology is falling short of the real goal.
I know that after my own wife and children, nothing matters more to me than the handful of people I have walked with and sponsored into baptism in the Church. I hope to do more of it before I die.
Again- if you can't even resolve the glaring problem in your view that has been exposed here, then how can you feel you're in the position to disciple anyone? What are you going to disciple them into? Disciple them into the practice of personally attacking other people when they can't refute their arguments, like you do?
If your self-congratulatory, pat-yourself-on-the-back, needlessly confrontational methods aren't discipling anyone, then what is the point? You arrogantly made crystal clear that you value being right as you see it above respectful dialogue that actually has the potential to change hearts.
Nobody has agreed that you have created a glaring problem in their view. You live in a strange world where (presumably) educated people tell you they don't agree with you yet you still know deep down inside what they actually believe and that they secretly agree with you. Seriously, what's the point of living in your fantasy land where you enjoy some kind of self-granted prophetic powers to know what others truly believe and know?
I can just see it now:
Now after a long time the master came and settled accounts.
One servant told him about building schools and hospitals for the poor.
The second servant fed the hungry and brought others to the Lord.
The third one told the master how he pointed out that the other two were wrong and that they didn't actually believe what they claimed they believed.
Based on your reaction in this thread, it's quite clear I've made the point with you.
Discipleship involves correction of errant beliefs.
I can see it now too: "Lord, lord, didn't we build schools and hospitals in your name, and fed the hungry in your name, and brought them to you? Jesus - "But you yourself denied my sufficient, once-for-all-time sacrifice and you seek Mary, not me. And you did NOT lead anyone not to me, you prevented them from coming to me by putting stumbling blocks in front of them with your false religion. And you insulted and dismissed those I sent to correct you. Depart from me".
Why are you dodging the questions? Once again, in case you missed it:
If your self-congratulatory, pat-yourself-on-the-back, needlessly confrontational methods aren't discipling anyone, then what is the point?
Seriously, what's the point of living in your fantasy land where you enjoy some kind of self-granted prophetic powers to know what others truly believe and know?
Correcting errors and exposing false beliefs are more important than discipling people.
Otherwise, you'll just disciple people into your false beliefs.
And don't think anyone is fooled. Everyone knows you've been dodging the question and are trying to divert attention away from it. Do you really think people here are that stupid?
Oldbear83 said:
I see what you are doing there, but it's not a perfect fit for the account in Matthew 25.
While you are offended by BusyTarpDuster's tone and style (I don't find it appropriate myself), it does not speak to what he has done with the talents God gave us for His work. And I believe we all face some criticism in terms of getting distracted and doing what we want instead of God's work.
DallasBear9902 said:Oldbear83 said:
I see what you are doing there, but it's not a perfect fit for the account in Matthew 25.
While you are offended by BusyTarpDuster's tone and style (I don't find it appropriate myself), it does not speak to what he has done with the talents God gave us for His work. And I believe we all face some criticism in terms of getting distracted and doing what we want instead of God's work.
Sure, that is fair. There is no perfect analogy.
Oldbear83 said:DallasBear9902 said:Oldbear83 said:
I see what you are doing there, but it's not a perfect fit for the account in Matthew 25.
While you are offended by BusyTarpDuster's tone and style (I don't find it appropriate myself), it does not speak to what he has done with the talents God gave us for His work. And I believe we all face some criticism in terms of getting distracted and doing what we want instead of God's work.
Sure, that is fair. There is no perfect analogy.
The problem I see here, is the matter of getting the person to actually consider what you post. Some people are great for conversation, even productive and enjoyable debate.
Some are just here to fight.
I've been a bit of both as a member here, trying to be more of the useful sort these days.
DallasBear9902 said:Oldbear83 said:DallasBear9902 said:Oldbear83 said:
I see what you are doing there, but it's not a perfect fit for the account in Matthew 25.
While you are offended by BusyTarpDuster's tone and style (I don't find it appropriate myself), it does not speak to what he has done with the talents God gave us for His work. And I believe we all face some criticism in terms of getting distracted and doing what we want instead of God's work.
Sure, that is fair. There is no perfect analogy.
The problem I see here, is the matter of getting the person to actually consider what you post. Some people are great for conversation, even productive and enjoyable debate.
Some are just here to fight.
I've been a bit of both as a member here, trying to be more of the useful sort these days.
I think, most of us should agree, discipleship is the end point of fraternal correction. I sort of invert the issue. If your methods aren't resulting in discipleship, then I think the problem is with your methods, not God's truth.
