The way to salvation is not my way, it’s Gods way. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant, you either accept Gods way or not, it’s your decision.
I don't think sarcasm had anything to do with it, and you've only reinforced that impression in this post. This thread isn't about other faiths, is it? It's about a doctrinal issue and debate within the Christian faith that began during the Protestant Reformation and continues to this day. Yet, theology is not universal, so your point is irrelevant. Again, it was you who introduced race into this discussion. There is no such thing as "white western salvation" which explains why no such conversation took place until you dragged that fabrication into this discussion. Not relevant to this conversation.
Thank you, Battle3, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the time and patience you have taken with me. I think I have a better grasp of the doctrine than I did when we began this discussion. I might do that. I've always found the history of the early Church and its doctrinal disputes quite fascinating. Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to what you said, but the Catholic Church was more than the institutions that were corrupted by the individuals responsible for its corruption, which is why there were so many struggles within the Church during those days, from the Conciliar movement to the Franciscan Poverty Controversy. One can focus on the John XXIIs or the William of Ockhams, but to get a full picture of the Catholic Church one has to consider and acknowledge both. Speaking of William of Ockham, it was a Dominican inquisitor serving the aforementioned John XXII who first declared the position of the Franciscans on Apostolic Poverty heretical during the Poverty Crisis of the early 14th Century, and if I recall correctly William was in Avignon at the time to face an inquisition about other unrelated teachings he had professed back in England around that time. I don't know how far back Inquisitions dated, but certainly they existed long before the one Isabella and Ferdinand instituted in Spain during the Reconquista. The Council of Trent and the Jesuits, I will concede, were an entirely different matter (and of course, you're correct that the Council was a Catholic affair). "Christians and non-Christians"? One could interpret that as people who do good works and those who do not. What's to say that they weren't? I could just as easily argue that they believed that their works, in addition to their faith, were requisite to their salvation, and this would be entirely consistent with following the example Jesus set and preached to his followers.
Come now Brother Todd - What kind of example do you set ? - this behind the back name calling .. hiding under a chair - hoping you might not be seen - that your light shineth not - but desperate to demonize the messenger in some way .. on some path of deception. I know this has you troubled Friend but, the majority of Christianity does not accept Sola Fide .. So you say - "Are you able to get out into the real world - I have a feeling you are trapped" Who is the one not in real world mate --- don't know majority of Christianity rejects the "Paul-Martin" heresy ? and why are you condemning a fellow brother .. spewing venom and fire .. for revealing to you the Truth. "trapped" you say -- kind of priceless this mirror your have put up -- but also in another way - so a double decepticon not only trapped in own web - but have also trapped God .... so got yourself a twofur Got God Trapped in a little tiny box .. From which there is no escape... har har har Was a little joke there at the end.. Where is Master Mitt when you need him aye Brother Todd .. our guide with the answers to the Tough Questions
Certainly not to covert anyone. Are you here to convert people? Or just reconfirm that you are on the right road to eternal life?
Sheep and goats were not introduced by me. Some are saved, some are not. You interpret it as those who do good deeds ans those who do not. But it is a requirement of the Muslim faith to do good works, and Islam is an Abrahamic faith deriving from the same roots as Christianity and incorporating many of the same ideologies so the question is quite valid. You are discussing whether good works are necessary for "salvation". Muslims are expected to do good works. So where do Muslims stand in terms of "salvation"? My question is whether your "salvation" is for Christians only. Or is the Christian God not the God of the world.
From what you are revealing is that you are very very unsure what that way is. Then how can you tell anyone else what it is.
Just an historical note: Christians were typically given two options: 1) Die, in the Coliseum arena, or 2) Renounce your faith. As I understand it, the majority, in fact, opted for the latter.
@Talon ,going just from the other posts, at this point, I think this is not too difficult a question-- for any Christian willing to rely on his Bible, for the answer: Matthew 25:31-46 New International Version The Sheep and the Goats 31 “When the Son of Man comes(A) in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.(B) 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate(C) the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.(D) 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom(E) prepared for you since the creation of the world.(F) 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,(G) 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me,(H) I was sick and you looked after me,(I) I was in prison and you came to visit me.’(J) 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’(K) 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me,(L) you who are cursed, into the eternal fire(M) prepared for the devil and his angels.(N) 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’(O) 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.(P)”(Q) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:31-46&version=NIV&interface=amp I will only add, that it is not reasonable for anyone to believe that they, or anyone else, can actually know what faces us, after death. Therefore, a philosophy which does not put any emphasis on good works, or helping others, and the like, seems like nothing more than an excuse, for ignoring the plights of others, and for not bothering to try to make the world a better place.
Though we apparently both quoted the same bible passage, I disagree with the perspective that is indicated here, that doing good works are almost something one does to earn credit, towards eternal salvation. So, one could say that I understand those who make the case, these are not heavenly prerequisites. But I think @yardmeat made the point, early on, that any faith that did not inspire good works, was not the genuine faith, of which Christ spoke. To take the verse from Matthew at face value, the true faith that will bring one salvation, is the one that gives a person the real recognition of Christ, in all people; and so, how can one whose heart is closed to other people, truly claim to be seeing them, as Christ, Himself? Though I don't believe in any check-lists, for entry into paradise, yet faith is manifest, in its works. Yes, only true faith is needed; but that type of faith would compel one's charity, generosity, tolerance, friendship, forgiveness, and love, since it would mean seeing each of us as only parts of the same, Christ consciousness; as cells, of a single body: loving our neighbor, as ourself.
Democrats have a different view. They believe: "Salvation is through submission and contributions. All else is paganism... and paganism is ok too."
I dont know what all this does except fragment Jesus's reason for being...to die for your sins. Trying to discern the mind of God and his rules for salvation is trying to define the purest form of some religion by semantics and guesswork seems to me to be arrogant. And exclusive to the entirety of God's creation which has divided into separate sections all trying to define what God wants, as "shown" through their texts. What if anything Christian sects agree is what God meant has no bearing on other faiths, all part of à God of the universe. So what you agree is limited only to what western theology suggests...à all part of the universe. The issue of free will was settled in the 18th century Enlightenment when theologically freed from such conundrums as what God meant and how do we do somersaults to follow the latest rules laid down by the latest Pope , men began to think for themselves freely and stop killing and torturing and threatening each other for challenging current doctrine (Galileo being the best known) . It was recognised theologically as God working out his plan via human endeavour, and not remaining in thrall and terror of losing their souls. So today we have science, medicine, moral development and are encouraged to ask questions. And people are still considered saints . If God had not wanted man to ask questions, Calvin and Luther would never have existed.
Then you're in the wrong place. These are discussions about sharing ideas that might change the minds of others- aka 'converting' them, if you must... If you're not trying to do that, then what? Just bitching?
Might change one's mind is not at all the same thing as setting out with a purpose to do that. I have never set out to change the mind of anyone, but merely to add information where I think it is lacking. What they do with that is entirely up to them and frankly I don't think will move any national opinion on any issue, from their devotion to Trump to their devotion to God, sometimes hard to distinguish.
If you are not here to convert anyone then why do you criticize other peoples beliefs and promote your own? Sounds like you are here to convert people.
You may think so. I can't possibly say. I have nothing for anyone yto converrt to! Which does not prevent me from asking questions and challenging those who do.
Absolutely I am interested in bringing people to Jesus. If you knew The Truth wouldn’t you be interested in letting people know it?
If you have an opinion then you have a position. Since your questions and challenges - and statements of opinion - always come from a single perspective you definitely have a personal philosophy.
I think you're splitting hairs that need not be split. There's no objective difference between 'might change someones mind' and 'trying to change someones mind' given that both require the sharing of ideas.
I would never be so arrogant as to say I know The Truth. Especially given that so many others say the same thing.
There is a huge difference. Might opens a possibility from the receivers side. Trying to change a mind is a deliberate effort from the givers side. Quite a difference.
If you think you know what that is I would be interested to know. Other that "first do no harm" and then "do not coerce or pressure others ...live and let live", I couldn't elucidate any further. I do however have some background in different philosophies advanced by others in history. And an idea about the cultural aspect in which they were expressed. I am more interested I that than which Pope encyclical declared how all Christians should understand God just to have it changed by some other human who thinks they hold The Truth, which seems to change periodically. And I am interested in how Christians think about their relationship with those of other faiths. I think its is fundamental to the development of the church in a diverse 21st century.
I think it is very disturbing. It pushes obedience over morality, as religions tend to do. It is a door to horrible despotism.
I disagree. I disagree. It is adding to a conversation. What happens to it then is not my problem. I am not in the business of converting anyone to anything. That comes from years of imparting information and encouraging students to make their own minds up. Hopefully even coming up with something original.
