God talking

[Unveiled Artist]

I hear you loud and clear. Understand that what you're teaching about sacraments is traditional and is not anywhere listed in the scriptures. And I've looked, for sure.

Do you have a Bible quotation I can research explaining that the sacraments are the Word? I have seen Bible passages that the Word and Wisdom of God are in Jesus Christ, not in my being baptized or eating and drinking the Eucharist.

Also, does God have one rule for salvation or multiple rules? I can go to Hell by not living sacrificially or purposefully, if I understand you right, but a sinner on his deathbed is "blessed" as you wrote and gets a free pass? My point is the only free passes weren't free, the price was paid on the Cross.

Im out so I reply in more detail later. During my RF years, I had been told to produce scriptures on the sacraments. I did so in full twice. Cant remembe the key words to search for the post.

Sacraments

1. Baptism (it means anything from being born again, water/spirit, saying a conviction of faith to be symbolically baptized into a church/body of people. It is not catholic.

2. Confirmation (saying you want jesus to be your lord and savior. An act of giving yourself to god. to Confirm our faith in him. It isn ot catholic

3. Reconcilation/repentence. Confessing to god for your sins. Confessing to god that you have sinned and want your sins forgiven. Confession-is not a catholic word

These are the main sacraments

1. Baptism into the faith in christ
2. Confirming your faith in christ
3. Confessing your sins to god

Now where is this not in scripture?

The sacraments are not catholic

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Also, does God have one rule for salvation or multiple rules? I can go to Hell by not living sacrificially or purposefully, if I understand you right, but a sinner on his deathbed is "blessed" as you wrote and gets a free pass? My point is the only free passes weren't free, the price was paid on the Cross.

I never saw them as rules. Many indoctrinates do. Many catholic haters for whatever honest or nonhonest reason think that way. It could be because of age. Catholic church (political nature) is not a happy history. It could be the outward appearanec. Gold and incense.

Who knows.

Yall just got to get passed all that bias (in any subject). Book Cover doesnt explain the nature of the book even if you were forced to read it at school. When you go back with a fresh eye, you see the good nature in it even if you dont like the book itself.

In my opinion, you (as a group) need to be more open minded. There is no fact of life spiritual and not that is contained in just one book. That just makes no sense logically speaking.

The belief is if you dont do for god, then god is sad and you ask for his forgiveness. He works with you in you relationship with him. So, you mess up, you say you sorry, you dont just belief it (sounds new age) but you actually put effort to say THANK YOUsoooo much god.

Thank you god. thank you for everything. I will do anything. I will be like abraham and give up my own child just to serve you (co-worker did that in gesture. She took her newborn and lifted it to god and praying over him. She told me god first. son second.)

How many protestant non liturgical (lit) people are that obedient to god?

Wait...

if I understand you right, but a sinner on his deathbed is "blessed" as you wrote and gets a free pass? My point is the only free passes weren't free, the price was paid on the Cross.
​

Yes. A sinner on his death bed get a free pass. You not on your death bed.

Free passes are not free (no gifts) they are conditional. If everything is paid for on the cross, there is no hell. Its universalism.

The bible doesnt teach everyone goes to heaven.

Even to suggest Im saying you go to hell if you go by my understanding is a from of indoctrination I keep hearing from others but I havent understood it fully. I dont trust a religion insomuch it gives me a choice to live or die.

But Catholic (any lit. faith) is totally different experience than protestant non-lit. ones. I used to go to a pentecostal, baptist, non-demoniational, and whats the other, forgot, but after going to the catholic Church, those churches seem all for show.

One church said I was practicing free mason in his own sermon because the church members (small church) said I was catholic. A friend invited me. First and last time I went. People literally condemn in these other churches.

Even with marriage equality issues. Every other church make a whole deal of it being a sin. The Mass I went to, instead, focused on the sanctity of marrige. They bypass talking about sin and talked about the sacred(ment) of marriage. I disagree but it didnt make me feel guilty or yelled at; we just have differences of opinion

Thats mature spirituality. But one thats verbatum from scripture!

Thats not a christian thing, thats just denominational and very illogical from life in general.

Edited for spelling

 

[BilliardsBall]

Im out so I reply in more detail later. During my RF years, I had been told to produce scriptures on the sacraments. I did so in full twice. Cant remembe the key words to search for the post.

Sacraments

1. Baptism (it means anything from being born again, water/spirit, saying a conviction of faith to be symbolically baptized into a church/body of people. It is not catholic.

2. Confirmation (saying you want jesus to be your lord and savior. An act of giving yourself to god. to Confirm our faith in him. It isn ot catholic

3. Reconcilation/repentence. Confessing to god for your sins. Confessing to god that you have sinned and want your sins forgiven. Confession-is not a catholic word

These are the main sacraments

1. Baptism into the faith in christ
2. Confirming your faith in christ
3. Confessing your sins to god

Now where is this not in scripture?

The sacraments are not catholic

The word "confirmation" as you have it is not in the scripture. Would you like scriptures, however, to show that baptism doesn't save, confirming faith doesn't save and confession of sin doesn't save?

And why have we not dealt with even one of the 150 scriptures in the Bible that say how a person could be saved?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I never saw them as rules. Many indoctrinates do. Many catholic haters for whatever honest or nonhonest reason think that way. It could be because of age. Catholic church (political nature) is not a happy history. It could be the outward appearanec. Gold and incense.

Who knows.

Yall just got to get passed all that bias (in any subject). Book Cover doesnt explain the nature of the book even if you were forced to read it at school. When you go back with a fresh eye, you see the good nature in it even if you dont like the book itself.

In my opinion, you (as a group) need to be more open minded. There is no fact of life spiritual and not that is contained in just one book. That just makes no sense logically speaking.

The belief is if you dont do for god, then god is sad and you ask for his forgiveness. He works with you in you relationship with him. So, you mess up, you say you sorry, you dont just belief it (sounds new age) but you actually put effort to say THANK YOUsoooo much god.

Thank you god. thank you for everything. I will do anything. I will be like abraham and give up my own child just to serve you (co-worker did that in gesture. She took her newborn and lifted it to god and praying over him. She told me god first. son second.)

How many protestant non liturgical (lit) people are that obedient to god?

Wait...

if I understand you right, but a sinner on his deathbed is "blessed" as you wrote and gets a free pass? My point is the only free passes weren't free, the price was paid on the Cross.
​

Yes. A sinner on his death bed get a free pass. You not on your death bed.

Free passes are not free (no gifts) they are conditional. If everything is paid for on the cross, there is no hell. Its universalism.

The bible doesnt teach everyone goes to heaven.

Even to suggest Im saying you go to hell if you go by my understanding is a from of indoctrination I keep hearing from others but I havent understood it fully. I dont trust a religion insomuch it gives me a choice to live or die.

But Catholic (any lit. faith) is totally different experience than protestant non-lit. ones. I used to go to a pentecostal, baptist, non-demoniational, and whats the other, forgot, but after going to the catholic Church, those churches seem all for show.

One church said I was practicing free mason in his own sermon because the church members (small church) said I was catholic. A friend invited me. First and last time I went. People literally condemn in these other churches.

Even with marriage equality issues. Every other church make a whole deal of it being a sin. The Mass I went to, instead, focused on the sanctity of marrige. They bypass talking about sin and talked about the sacred(ment) of marriage. I disagree but it didnt make me feel guilty or yelled at; we just have differences of opinion

Thats mature spirituality. But one thats verbatum from scripture!

Thats not a christian thing, thats just denominational and very illogical from life in general.

Edited for spelling

Trying to understand what you wrote above:

1. God compares people for their relative desire/sacrifice/goodness, so that many Catholics, who would be willing to slay their children, are saved, but Protestants and evangelicals lack this type of commitment.

2. God compares people, so that the cross of Christ is a sort of example, but doesn't actually save us, even though the Bible says the cross and resurrection are the power of salvation in several hundred NT verses.

3. One should never get one's religious doctrine from any one religious book (even though the Bible is 66 books written by 40 authors and teams of authors over 1,500 years, who all agree on correct doctrine, and even though the Bible claims to be the mind of Christ transmitted to humans through inspiration), instead, one should trust tradition for religious doctrine, and where possible, perhaps find a few scriptures that authenticate tradition.

4. The cross of Christ saving must lead to universal salvation (in error), since the Bible says Jesus died for everyone, even though the Bible says 1) Jesus died for all 2) individuals must respond to the cross by trusting Jesus personally.

5. We know that Jesus works in relationship with people, to guide them and lead them into truth, although we cannot firmly trust the only books that exist that record exactly what He did and said, as reported by prophets and eyewitnesses. We should trust our individual perception of Jesus and personal revelation, not really allowing eyewitness documents to create biases in our hearts.

6. Free gifts are not free gifts, they are conditional. God used the incorrect words in the Bible for "gifts" because when one reads the whole Bible, even though one should not really trust the Bible, but should trust personal revelation, relationship with Jesus and church tradition, God never sent Jesus as a Christmas gift or Cross gift, and never really told people they can know today for sure they are saved tomorrow, but asks people to be better, sacrificial and perform sacraments to hope to maybe be saved.

7. The non-Catholic churches you've been to seemed all for show. But Catholicism's ornate churches, priestly clothing, stained glass, adornment, etc. are not all for show--rather they guide us into relationship with and adoration of Christ, as long as we're very careful not to take too literally the only documents we have that report what Jesus said and did, as written by eyewitnesses who were inspired by God.

Do I understand you right in points 1-7 above? Thanks!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The word "confirmation" as you have it is not in the scripture. Would you like scriptures, however, to show that baptism doesn't save, confirming faith doesn't save and confession of sin doesn't save?

And why have we not dealt with even one of the 150 scriptures in the Bible that say how a person could be saved?

Really, Billard??

In English definition confirmation is establishing a truth or correctness of something. If you said jesus i your savior, you are confirming your conviction by your faith in him. That is confirmation.

Where in the bible is the confirmation of faith missing?

Baptism is, in general not by denomination, is just making the final act of giving your life to christ because he saved you. Its your personal and act of conviction.

Confession (to tell something to another of guitly or truth from lying) just means repentence.

That is the english synonmn of the terms. It is not catholic.

Where in the bible is repentence not important to your salvation?

Because you keep reading in my words catholic not scripture so its hard to get pass anything but words

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Do I understand you right in points 1-7 above? Thanks!

Ill get back to this. Have you ever stared at a person and think "but its right in front of his face!" and yet the other doesnt see it?

Maybe we have so much bias its hard to see truth in aother persons story (some people actually feel threatened when they do; my friend said it would amke her doubt her faith.)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Really, Billard??

In English definition confirmation is establishing a truth or correctness of something. If you said jesus i your savior, you are confirming your conviction by your faith in him. That is confirmation.

Where in the bible is the confirmation of faith missing?

Baptism is, in general not by denomination, is just making the final act of giving your life to christ because he saved you. Its your personal and act of conviction.

Confession (to tell something to another of guitly or truth from lying) just means repentence.

That is the english synonmn of the terms. It is not catholic.

Where in the bible is repentence not important to your salvation?

Because you keep reading in my words catholic not scripture so its hard to get pass anything but words

Confirming faith, being baptized, confessing, repentance, these are all worthy things--and baptism is commanded in the scriptures.

However, in over 150 NT passages explaining that trusting Jesus is salvation, trusting in His cross and resurrection, well, not a single one of them says any of the following are a part of salvation, demanded by salvation or needed for salvation:

*Baptism - it's a hallmark of obedience for growth, but one must already be saved to next be baptized in Jesus

*Confession - it's good for one's soul even if not a believer, but confession does not equal salvation

*Repentance - one must change one's mind about Jesus to be saved, but repentance is not mentioned in any of those 150 passages, also, the Greek word "metanoia" means changing one's mind, not changing one's life

*Faith - we are saved, the Bible tells us, through faith--however, where we see the English word faith, the best rendering is trust--yes, the Bible says we are saved by trusting Jesus, but this trust does not require verbalization or confirmation

One trusts Jesus and is saved--period. One does not need to "confirm" this trust with any human or reconfirm it, ever.

I appreciate your sharing with me your personal beliefs and also church traditions. However, when different Bible writers say the same thing in the NT over 150 times--and when the OT also says to trust God, not personal practices for salvation--unless you have Bible passages that come anywhere close to these several hundred statements . . .

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ill get back to this. Have you ever stared at a person and think "but its right in front of his face!" and yet the other doesnt see it?

Maybe we have so much bias its hard to see truth in aother persons story (some people actually feel threatened when they do; my friend said it would amke her doubt her faith.)

I do have a bias, yes, I do. My bias is the Bible is more important than any church tradition, whether evangelical, Protestant or Catholic. The Bible says about itself that:

* it is infallible
* it is perfect
* it shows us the very mind and thoughts and plans of God
* it is all we need for doctrine
* it is inspired--God said in the Bible EXACTLY everything He needs to tell people this side of Heaven and Hell
* it is superior to any tradition--including that of the rabbis who were priests and ministers for 1,800 years before the Catholic church existed

And in addition to knowing my firm bias, I also said I'm comfortable with you saying "the whole Bible teaches X", as long as you understand:

* different Bible writers say in 150 passages "Trust Jesus for salvation" and ZERO Bible passages say we must repent, confess, be baptized or do anything for salvation to add to or take away from "Trust Jesus for salvation"

* when people say or write things to me 150 times, I tend to feel they are trying hard to make a specific point with me

* the Bible teaches salvation is a gift, and in almost every place where it does, to show the point further, it says in the SAME passages, "salvation is NOT by works"

* it can indeed sort of seem like the Bible teaches other kinds of salvation, but it doesn't, particularly as we study Hebrew, Greek, context, and read surrounding clear passages that help us understand confusing passages

For example, in the nation of Greece, where the current language is not that far removed from the Greek language of the NT, there are NO churches or sects that teach water baptism saves or that people have to "prove or confirm or verify or show" their trust in Jesus by lifestyle, works or anything else--because they lack the language barriers English readers have.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Confirming faith, being baptized, confessing, repentance, these are all worthy things--and baptism is commanded in the scriptures.

However, in over 150 NT passages explaining that trusting Jesus is salvation, trusting in His cross and resurrection, well, not a single one of them says any of the following are a part of salvation, demanded by salvation or needed for salvation:

*Baptism - it's a hallmark of obedience for growth, but one must already be saved to next be baptized in Jesus

*Confession - it's good for one's soul even if not a believer, but confession does not equal salvation

*Repentance - one must change one's mind about Jesus to be saved, but repentance is not mentioned in any of those 150 passages, also, the Greek word "metanoia" means changing one's mind, not changing one's life

*Faith - we are saved, the Bible tells us, through faith--however, where we see the English word faith, the best rendering is trust--yes, the Bible says we are saved by trusting Jesus, but this trust does not require verbalization or confirmation

One trusts Jesus and is saved--period. One does not need to "confirm" this trust with any human or reconfirm it, ever.

I appreciate your sharing with me your personal beliefs and also church traditions. However, when different Bible writers say the same thing in the NT over 150 times--and when the OT also says to trust God, not personal practices for salvation--unless you have Bible passages that come anywhere close to these several hundred statements . . .

This is what the chuch teaches.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I do have a bias, yes, I do. My bias is the Bible is more important than any church tradition, whether evangelical, Protestant or Catholic. The Bible says about itself that:

* it is infallible
* it is perfect
* it shows us the very mind and thoughts and plans of God
* it is all we need for doctrine
* it is inspired--God said in the Bible EXACTLY everything He needs to tell people this side of Heaven and Hell
* it is superior to any tradition--including that of the rabbis who were priests and ministers for 1,800 years before the Catholic church existed

And in addition to knowing my firm bias, I also said I'm comfortable with you saying "the whole Bible teaches X", as long as you understand:

* different Bible writers say in 150 passages "Trust Jesus for salvation" and ZERO Bible passages say we must repent, confess, be baptized or do anything for salvation to add to or take away from "Trust Jesus for salvation"

* when people say or write things to me 150 times, I tend to feel they are trying hard to make a specific point with me

* the Bible teaches salvation is a gift, and in almost every place where it does, to show the point further, it says in the SAME passages, "salvation is NOT by works"

* it can indeed sort of seem like the Bible teaches other kinds of salvation, but it doesn't, particularly as we study Hebrew, Greek, context, and read surrounding clear passages that help us understand confusing passages

For example, in the nation of Greece, where the current language is not that far removed from the Greek language of the NT, there are NO churches or sects that teach water baptism saves or that people have to "prove or confirm or verify or show" their trust in Jesus by lifestyle, works or anything else--because they lack the language barriers English readers have.

If I stripped Church politics, take away the gold, burn saint statues to the ground, and take off ther robes of the priest, theyd still teach what you are saying with the same bible and the same christ.

My being in the Church only means I worshiped christ in a specific way. Just as JW. Just as Baptist. Just as, I dont know, Quakers. It does not change jesus message. It doesnt change the bible. The teachings of the Church (the bible) is not its politics.

I cant find what you disagree with in main doctrines and the church. You dont need to pray the rosary or talk to the saints to be catholic. Its specific to one baptism. one christ. one bible. one body.

Anything else are parts of The Church but baptism, communion, and repentence are the top key saviors. Its exactly the reasons youve already listed. The only difference is, they dont just believe it, they act in their faith. Its a full 100 percent body and mind and spirit interaction with christ and his father ann the holy spirit.

Its not different than what you say. They just use their whole soul to worship not just spirit without any other application of faith.

If I didnt mention I was catholic on RF, christians would have never known because if I were christian we share. the. same. beliefs.

I personally have bias with the church but that doesnt change the churches teachings just my relationship and perspective of them. They dont mix.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I read what you said these things pointed out since addresing them all wouldnt be productive

Catholicism at its core is:

One body. One baptism. Repentence. One christ. One creator.

*Baptism - it's a hallmark of obedience for growth, but one must already be saved to next be baptized in Jesus

Yes. The Church teaches this

*Confession - it's good for one's soul even if not a believer, but confession does not equal salvation

Yes, The Church teaches this.

*Repentance - one must change one's mind about Jesus to be saved, but repentance is not mentioned in any of those 150 passages, also, the Greek word "metanoia" means changing one's mind, not changing one's life

The Church teaches this.

*Faith - we are saved, the Bible tells us, through faith--however, where we see the English word faith, the best rendering is trust--yes, the Bible says we are saved by trusting Jesus, but this trust does not require verbalization or confirmation

Yes....

Require is not a good word for an act of faith. Did you tell god you want to be saved (or something similar)?

Did jesus confirm (strengthen) your faith?

It is not a catholic teaching.

One trusts Jesus and is saved--period. One does not need to "confirm" this trust with any human or reconfirm it, ever.

Confirm means make a conviction. Christ solidifies your faith.

What confirmation are you speaking of to which christ isnt a part of?

* it is infallible
* it is perfect
* it shows us the very mind and thoughts and plans of God
* it is all we need for doctrine
* it is inspired--God said in the Bible EXACTLY everything He needs to tell people this side of Heaven and Hell
* it is superior to any tradition--including that of the rabbis who were priests and ministers for 1,800 years before the Catholic church existed

Yes....

The difference is the last part, the tradition and scripture are the same. In church teachings, The Church is based on the bible not the other way around.

I am going by what the church teaches not my personal beliefs of church doctrine. They are completely different.

I was confirmed (I said: I want jesus t be my lord and savior) in a more liberal church. We didnt pray to saints in mass. We only prayed to christ father in the name of christ. Everything else was each catholics personal conviction in how they worshiped christ.

Also, age, location, and experience has A LOT to do with peoples negativity with the church.

If they step apart from all of that, the doctrines are biblical. As a convert in the 20th century, Im so glad I didnt experience what hear a otof people do down south of me and other churches a bit more traditional than mine.

But that doesnt change chuch teachings. Disagreeing does not mean they are wrong. Only christians I know argue over basics. I dont even see that on RF. Yall just cant work as a unit anymore.

Edit: Catholic does not mean Roman

 

[BilliardsBall]

If I stripped Church politics, take away the gold, burn saint statues to the ground, and take off ther robes of the priest, theyd still teach what you are saying with the same bible and the same christ.

My being in the Church only means I worshiped christ in a specific way. Just as JW. Just as Baptist. Just as, I dont know, Quakers. It does not change jesus message. It doesnt change the bible. The teachings of the Church (the bible) is not its politics.

I cant find what you disagree with in main doctrines and the church. You dont need to pray the rosary or talk to the saints to be catholic. Its specific to one baptism. one christ. one bible. one body.

Anything else are parts of The Church but baptism, communion, and repentence are the top key saviors. Its exactly the reasons youve already listed. The only difference is, they dont just believe it, they act in their faith. Its a full 100 percent body and mind and spirit interaction with christ and his father ann the holy spirit.

Its not different than what you say. They just use their whole soul to worship not just spirit without any other application of faith.

If I didnt mention I was catholic on RF, christians would have never known because if I were christian we share. the. same. beliefs.

I personally have bias with the church but that doesnt change the churches teachings just my relationship and perspective of them. They dont mix.

I sincerely apologize for any confusion. I do not mind if someone is evangelical, Protestant or Catholic. My main concern when meeting new people is whether they are going to Heaven. Evangelism is not permitted at this forum, but it is okay to ask people questions to try to see where they may be at. I only know three kinds of people:

1. People not interested in the gospel
2. People with their gospel details correct
3. People into the gospel but with their details incorrect

I know the people in "2" are saved but I question the salvation, sometimes, of the people group in "3".

I guess I could have learned a lot about Jesus via church tradition, but before I attended church--I'm Jewish--I learned a lot about Jesus in both Bible testaments. It was very clear to me before I entered a church that Jesus said only He offers salvation via trusting Him, to receive a very special free gift.

And when I have to decide whether a church tradition is correct, should I trust the tradition or the original texts?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I read what you said these things pointed out since addresing them all wouldnt be productive

Catholicism at its core is:

One body. One baptism. Repentence. One christ. One creator.



Yes. The Church teaches this




Yes, The Church teaches this.



The Church teaches this.



Yes....

Require is not a good word for an act of faith. Did you tell god you want to be saved (or something similar)?

Did jesus confirm (strengthen) your faith?

It is not a catholic teaching.



Confirm means make a conviction. Christ solidifies your faith.

What confirmation are you speaking of to which christ isnt a part of?



Yes....

The difference is the last part, the tradition and scripture are the same. In church teachings, The Church is based on the bible not the other way around.

I am going by what the church teaches not my personal beliefs of church doctrine. They are completely different.

I was confirmed (I said: I want jesus t be my lord and savior) in a more liberal church. We didnt pray to saints in mass. We only prayed to christ father in the name of christ. Everything else was each catholics personal conviction in how they worshiped christ.

Also, age, location, and experience has A LOT to do with peoples negativity with the church.

If they step apart from all of that, the doctrines are biblical. As a convert in the 20th century, Im so glad I didnt experience what hear a otof people do down south of me and other churches a bit more traditional than mine.

But that doesnt change chuch teachings. Disagreeing does not mean they are wrong. Only christians I know argue over basics. I dont even see that on RF. Yall just cant work as a unit anymore.

Edit: Catholic does not mean Roman

I actually have no problem with someone saying belief X or Y is correct and Catholic. My main concern is when I read the Bible, which says in hundreds, not two or three, verses and passages, exactly how people can escape this world, and then I hear "No, what Jesus said isn't really what He meant."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I sincerely apologize for any confusion. I do not mind if someone is evangelical, Protestant or Catholic. My main concern when meeting new people is whether they are going to Heaven. Evangelism is not permitted at this forum, but it is okay to ask people questions to try to see where they may be at. I only know three kinds of people:

1. People not interested in the gospel
2. People with their gospel details correct
3. People into the gospel but with their details incorrect

I know the people in "2" are saved but I question the salvation, sometimes, of the people group in "3".

I guess I could have learned a lot about Jesus via church tradition, but before I attended church--I'm Jewish--I learned a lot about Jesus in both Bible testaments. It was very clear to me before I entered a church that Jesus said only He offers salvation via trusting Him, to receive a very special free gift.

And when I have to decide whether a church tradition is correct, should I trust the tradition or the original texts?

Church tradition is based on original text (Church is not specific to Roman). I was never raised in a christian famly. I only went to mass for four years of my adult life. I stoped practicing because christianity regradless the denomination went strictly against my morals and it wasnt something I can base my life on.

The Roman part is different than I encountered in most Churches I visited. I also dont like evangalizing. I feel thats overstepping someone elses rights to their belief; and, in my opinion, very selfish of me for me to have an inherit belief they should go to heaven or they are in danger of some sort.

Maybe to their own beliefs and morals but my own? I didnt and dont care for that. Catholics have evanglism too. Anti abortion rallies. Making people lose their businesses (adult) when it wasnt even in the Churchs property to say a word about other peoples businesses.

A protestant baptist (actual baptist) church I attended because a resident invited me is a small church. Someone said I was catholic and the whole sermon was on free masons. I dont know what he would have preached if I werent there; but, I know it wouldnt have been that.

Thats how evangalism looses members. I mean, many protestant evangelist churches quote marriage equality as a sin; and go on and on about sins.

I went to mass and instead of talking about sin, they talked about the sanctity of marriage between male and female. It felt like a breathe of fresh air. The conflict between denominations on any topic is unsettling.

Why do you feel you have the correct knowledge of scripture and someone else does not?

I dont think you have a different type of holy spirit. Im sure biblical translations arent so off to set yall to a fight. Dont think JW and Catholic holy spirit is different than yours or another christians. You have to go beyond saying they are wrong and address the spirit-ual relation as being incorrect not what version of the bible they have and whether they own one to beign with.

I mean, sometimes I catch myself comparing my knowledge to another persons ignorance; then, I think, their values are not mine. They are not me. They see the world different. Not right. Not wrong. Just diferent.

I dont know if you believe in repentence, communion, and confirmation; but, these arent catholic words. I never heard of a christian not tell god he is sorry, not worshp with others, and not trust in god to confirm their faith.

I feel a deja vu right now; but, Im honestly asking, how are you christian when your relationship with christ has nothing to do with these three things above?

Salvation is a lifestyle. If not these three things, in my opinion, how are you saved? In what reason should god forgive you if your relationship with him isnt something of deed but something of just faith?

Not questioning your salvation as valid but the logic behind how you view yourself as saved if you dont believe these three things have anything to do with your salvation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I actually have no problem with someone saying belief X or Y is correct and Catholic. My main concern is when I read the Bible, which says in hundreds, not two or three, verses and passages, exactly how people can escape this world, and then I hear "No, what Jesus said isn't really what He meant."

I hear more modern churches say that. I figure, just as any book, if it says Christ sad faith without deeds is nothing; and god will judge christians by their deeds, it is what it is. It doesnt affect me. But, it does other people. I mean, people say catholics (example) are cannabols and they actually think catholics believe they eat the blood and body of jesus christ himself.

I asked the priest before confirmed and he just laughed. I asked: Do you guys really eat christs body and drink his blood? Must have been the way I said it, but he said no. Bible doesnt teach literally eating flesh and blood of people.

It teaches one takes in the sacrifice of the lamb (as in the OT). Every time there is a sacrifice, people partake of the remains. But they know the difference between animals and humans. So, I just laugh too.

Im not sola scriptura cause if I were, yes, Catholics eat christ blood and body; but, Im not. They eat or consume the flesh (Sacrifice) and blood (salvation) of christ to make christ present among the body of people as too it says in scripture.

But thats my experience and study. Im not a bias person, at least I try not to be. It makes me see negativity and if I were christian (or Muslim or bahai) it would make me want me to evangalize someone so they can go to heaven as if I had something to do with their actual salvation.

But, yeah, I can see why symbolism is annoying. If the physical jesus didnt die on the cross would that matter since salvation is based on faith not on deed?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Church tradition is based on original text (Church is not specific to Roman). I was never raised in a christian famly. I only went to mass for four years of my adult life. I stoped practicing because christianity regradless the denomination went strictly against my morals and it wasnt something I can base my life on.

The Roman part is different than I encountered in most Churches I visited. I also dont like evangalizing. I feel thats overstepping someone elses rights to their belief; and, in my opinion, very selfish of me for me to have an inherit belief they should go to heaven or they are in danger of some sort.

Maybe to their own beliefs and morals but my own? I didnt and dont care for that. Catholics have evanglism too. Anti abortion rallies. Making people lose their businesses (adult) when it wasnt even in the Churchs property to say a word about other peoples businesses.

A protestant baptist (actual baptist) church I attended because a resident invited me is a small church. Someone said I was catholic and the whole sermon was on free masons. I dont know what he would have preached if I werent there; but, I know it wouldnt have been that.

Thats how evangalism looses members. I mean, many protestant evangelist churches quote marriage equality as a sin; and go on and on about sins.

I went to mass and instead of talking about sin, they talked about the sanctity of marriage between male and female. It felt like a breathe of fresh air. The conflict between denominations on any topic is unsettling.

Why do you feel you have the correct knowledge of scripture and someone else does not?

I dont think you have a different type of holy spirit. Im sure biblical translations arent so off to set yall to a fight. Dont think JW and Catholic holy spirit is different than yours or another christians. You have to go beyond saying they are wrong and address the spirit-ual relation as being incorrect not what version of the bible they have and whether they own one to beign with.

I mean, sometimes I catch myself comparing my knowledge to another persons ignorance; then, I think, their values are not mine. They are not me. They see the world different. Not right. Not wrong. Just diferent.

I dont know if you believe in repentence, communion, and confirmation; but, these arent catholic words. I never heard of a christian not tell god he is sorry, not worshp with others, and not trust in god to confirm their faith.

I feel a deja vu right now; but, Im honestly asking, how are you christian when your relationship with christ has nothing to do with these three things above?

Salvation is a lifestyle. If not these three things, in my opinion, how are you saved? In what reason should god forgive you if your relationship with him isnt something of deed but something of just faith?

Not questioning your salvation as valid but the logic behind how you view yourself as saved if you dont believe these three things have anything to do with your salvation.

You asked me "Why do you feel you have the correct knowledge of scripture and someone else does not?"

Why do you feel "Salvation is a lifestyle" is the correct knowledge of scripture and tradition but my view that it's a free gift is not correct?

I would say in BOTH our cases there cannot be multiple interpretations that are correct:

*Jesus rose or did not, not both
*Salvation is a gift or earned, not both
*We have assurance of salvation or not, and not both
*Etc.

I do feel more confident when I say "I can find hundreds of verses and passages in both testaments saying trusting God is salvation, would you a list of them?" is more credible than "some of the Bible uses the correct words, some does not, in general, when one looks at the whole book, it is saying Jesus can only save a little, we have to do the rest".

 

[BilliardsBall]

I hear more modern churches say that. I figure, just as any book, if it says Christ sad faith without deeds is nothing; and god will judge christians by their deeds, it is what it is. It doesnt affect me. But, it does other people. I mean, people say catholics (example) are cannabols and they actually think catholics believe they eat the blood and body of jesus christ himself.

I asked the priest before confirmed and he just laughed. I asked: Do you guys really eat christs body and drink his blood? Must have been the way I said it, but he said no. Bible doesnt teach literally eating flesh and blood of people.

It teaches one takes in the sacrifice of the lamb (as in the OT). Every time there is a sacrifice, people partake of the remains. But they know the difference between animals and humans. So, I just laugh too.

Im not sola scriptura cause if I were, yes, Catholics eat christ blood and body; but, Im not. They eat or consume the flesh (Sacrifice) and blood (salvation) of christ to make christ present among the body of people as too it says in scripture.

But thats my experience and study. Im not a bias person, at least I try not to be. It makes me see negativity and if I were christian (or Muslim or bahai) it would make me want me to evangalize someone so they can go to heaven as if I had something to do with their actual salvation.

But, yeah, I can see why symbolism is annoying. If the physical jesus didnt die on the cross would that matter since salvation is based on faith not on deed?

I understand, but it seems you believe these words are correct: "Faith without works is dead [to save]." But you also believe these words, "Salvation is by grace through faith, not by works, it is the gift of God," are the wrong words to have been used.

How do you know that James 2 is "right" but Ephesians 2 is "wrong"?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You asked me "Why do you feel you have the correct knowledge of scripture and someone else does not?"

Why do you feel "Salvation is a lifestyle" is the correct knowledge of scripture and tradition but my view that it's a free gift is not correct?

I would say in BOTH our cases there cannot be multiple interpretations that are correct:

*Jesus rose or did not, not both
*Salvation is a gift or earned, not both
*We have assurance of salvation or not, and not both
*Etc.

I do feel more confident when I say "I can find hundreds of verses and passages in both testaments saying trusting God is salvation, would you a list of them?" is more credible than "some of the Bible uses the correct words, some does not, in general, when one looks at the whole book, it is saying Jesus can only save a little, we have to do the rest".

Most denominations if not all share your views. Salvation is a lifestyle (spirituality is), because

1. When you constantly sin, there needs (in my opinion) to be some sort of asking for forgiveness to keep that relationship with god. Its not onesided.

2, Prayer is a lifestyle not something you do once a week. You are living in the state of prayer. Why would a person be saved if their lives were not reflecting their salvation

3. Salvation shows you how to treat other people. Not in the maner of evangalism; not everyone needs to be saved (if going by their views not your own; accepting they know whats best for their spiritual wellbeing) but in the same way christ was involved with people who did and did not believe. People he saved werent saved from the get-go. Salvation is a devotional lifestyle. Like I quoted scriptures faith/deeds are interconnected. The bible is not isolated verses. OT and NT put emphasis on deeds and salvation and gods parden. These are unrighteous needs; That is a important word, unrighteuos. Jesus specificed many times the differences.

As for the details of your faith, Ive read the bible in full. We disagree on all of it; but, regardless the topic, it still needs to be at least somewhat logical.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand, but it seems you believe these words are correct: "Faith without works is dead [to save]." But you also believe these words, "Salvation is by grace through faith, not by works, it is the gift of God," are the wrong words to have been used.

How do you know that James 2 is "right" but Ephesians 2 is "wrong"?

They are not isolated verses.

Unrighteous faith and deeds save. Christians are judged by their deeds not by their faith. The type of deeds jesus defines in the bible by describing the difference between righteous and unrighteous deeds.

The last verses, you would have to specific which topic you are referring to. The first one, I dont see the relations.

Not saying your belief is wrong. Its your faith. Im questioning you logic. I mean, my parent loves me, thats fine. However, she taught that love isnt an isolated emotion. She taught me things we do because of love; things we do out of love; what we do is love.

Thats how we are loved by our parents. Love (faith) isnt an isolated emotion. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Most denominations if not all share your views. Salvation is a lifestyle (spirituality is), because

1. When you constantly sin, there needs (in my opinion) to be some sort of asking for forgiveness to keep that relationship with god. Its not onesided.

2, Prayer is a lifestyle not something you do once a week. You are living in the state of prayer. Why would a person be saved if their lives were not reflecting their salvation

3. Salvation shows you how to treat other people. Not in the maner of evangalism; not everyone needs to be saved (if going by their views not your own; accepting they know whats best for their spiritual wellbeing) but in the same way christ was involved with people who did and did not believe. People he saved werent saved from the get-go. Salvation is a devotional lifestyle. Like I quoted scriptures faith/deeds are interconnected. The bible is not isolated verses. OT and NT put emphasis on deeds and salvation and gods parden. These are unrighteous needs; That is a important word, unrighteuos. Jesus specificed many times the differences.

As for the details of your faith, Ive read the bible in full. We disagree on all of it; but, regardless the topic, it still needs to be at least somewhat logical.

Please help me understand.

My salvation comes from the cross, but the cross is unable to pay for all of my sin. I have to ask forgiveness over and again, despite the very clear Bible passages, even entire chapters, devoted to the fullness of the cross, for example, in Hebrews, where several chapters are devoted to saying things like "the priestly sacrifices, offerings and prayers could not save, otherwise they would not need to have been offered again and again for themselves and the people, instead, Jesus came, our great priest, to pay for sin, once for all."

Also please help me understand: If my lifestyle, prayer, asking for forgiveness and treating other people (the points you made above) have to "show" I'm saved, how much is enough? How do I know I'm not in danger? Do you not see this is how non-Bible "churches" hold people in thrall, like religious slaves?