Fundamentalists/Evangelicals: Are Roman Catholics Destined to Burn in Hell?

That question coming from those people doesn't surprise me at all.

(06-23-2011 01:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 12:07 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-22-2011 02:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-22-2011 02:11 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-22-2011 12:58 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  And you base that on?

A lack of any evidence to the reality of any deity in any way, shape or form. And I see man's remarkable inhumanity to man a clear and distinct indicator of a lack of a God of any type. I cannot believe that an all knowing, all seeing omni-present higher power would allow humans to suffer with such pain.

So what you may see as divine (such as posts about math and science above) I simply see as the beauty of chance and chaos.

(Don't you think it's positively amazing that you can believe in God and the order of life and afterlife, and I can believe in the total randomness of the universe being nothing but a lucky strike? I find that fascinating to humanity can have such extremes)

Ahhh you're an Atheist, That slipped my mind.. Thought I was talking to an "There is only a heaven" type of mushy Christian..

there is no such thing as an atheist.
No practical thinking human, can believe that everything that is in the physical world at this moment came from nothingness.
Therefore, something must have made it. Being that no one human posseses all known knowledge of the universe, or has been to each and every corner of the known universe....one cannot know that there is NOT a God.
I do believe that the perception of heel that a lot of people believe is flawed though....

I believe the Catholic CHurch is a very flawed system.
It relies on tradition, and the word of ONE man...this one man speaks blasphemies as mention in the Bible (ie claims to be able to change God's law), shall think to change times and laws (ie the day of Worship as mentioned in the 10 commandements. Have you SEEN the Catholic version of the 10 commandments? Compare it to what is found in the King James version, and you will notice that the King James #4 Commanment...obervance of the Sabbath and keeping it Holy has been removed. Instead, you will find one commandment split into two commandments)
Not all Catholics are lost, justr as not all people in the Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal Churches are saved.
It is why God says in the Bible "Come out of her my people"....

And this, my friends, is what you get when people pridefully interpret the bible and feel they have the true message while the unwashed masses who believe otherwise will die in their ignorance.

So tell me, if the scriptures can be opened to any person who by praying for guidance from God to open your eyes to receive His message in the bible, why are there so many variations of churches in existence since the Reformation? Why do some groups believe baptism washes away sins while others believe it is purely symbolic? Why do some groups cling to "covenant theology" while others believe in "dispensationalism" when interpreting the bible? Surely God would not allow everyone to come up with different conclusions of what His word means if they came to Him for guidance when reading the bible?

I think the most crucial belief is that Jesus ALONE is the saviour...and that he died for your sins.
There is no co-creator....or co-ruler (ie the Queen Mother)...we do not need a priest to go-between for us...Jesus himself is our mediator.
The rest of theological controversies could be described as window dressings.
For instance, my church's stance on death and dying may differ from a Baptist church's teachings on death and dying.
Does it affect our salvation?? No.
I look for a church that can back up the majority of what it teaches with scripture.
Not merely one or two Bible verses...but multiple ones if necessary.
You also have to understand the context of what you are reading.
You can usually understand the verse better by reading the verse in front of it, and the one after it...to see if someone is not merely attempting to spin a verse to meet a situation for their own needs or beliefs.

(06-23-2011 01:49 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Fundamentalists/Evangelicals: Are Roman Catholics Destined to Burn in Hell?

That question coming from those people doesn't surprise me at all.

Who are "those people"?

(06-23-2011 01:51 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 01:49 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Fundamentalists/Evangelicals: Are Roman Catholics Destined to Burn in Hell?

That question coming from those people doesn't surprise me at all.

Who are "those people"?

I think he means folks like Pat Robertson who have also ventured into politics....the Christian Right in other words.

(06-23-2011 12:57 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 12:53 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  back in 2004 or 2005, I listened to some radio program coming out of Israel, where two Israeli Christians (formerly rabbis) talked about the rebuilding of the Temple occuring between 2014-2017....

I always keep in mind that the first time Christ talked about rebuilding the Temple it had nothing to do with the actual Temple..

I'll go with the actual.

(06-23-2011 01:50 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 01:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 12:07 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-22-2011 02:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-22-2011 02:11 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  A lack of any evidence to the reality of any deity in any way, shape or form. And I see man's remarkable inhumanity to man a clear and distinct indicator of a lack of a God of any type. I cannot believe that an all knowing, all seeing omni-present higher power would allow humans to suffer with such pain.

So what you may see as divine (such as posts about math and science above) I simply see as the beauty of chance and chaos.

(Don't you think it's positively amazing that you can believe in God and the order of life and afterlife, and I can believe in the total randomness of the universe being nothing but a lucky strike? I find that fascinating to humanity can have such extremes)

Ahhh you're an Atheist, That slipped my mind.. Thought I was talking to an "There is only a heaven" type of mushy Christian..

there is no such thing as an atheist.
No practical thinking human, can believe that everything that is in the physical world at this moment came from nothingness.
Therefore, something must have made it. Being that no one human posseses all known knowledge of the universe, or has been to each and every corner of the known universe....one cannot know that there is NOT a God.
I do believe that the perception of heel that a lot of people believe is flawed though....

I believe the Catholic CHurch is a very flawed system.
It relies on tradition, and the word of ONE man...this one man speaks blasphemies as mention in the Bible (ie claims to be able to change God's law), shall think to change times and laws (ie the day of Worship as mentioned in the 10 commandements. Have you SEEN the Catholic version of the 10 commandments? Compare it to what is found in the King James version, and you will notice that the King James #4 Commanment...obervance of the Sabbath and keeping it Holy has been removed. Instead, you will find one commandment split into two commandments)
Not all Catholics are lost, justr as not all people in the Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal Churches are saved.
It is why God says in the Bible "Come out of her my people"....

And this, my friends, is what you get when people pridefully interpret the bible and feel they have the true message while the unwashed masses who believe otherwise will die in their ignorance.

So tell me, if the scriptures can be opened to any person who by praying for guidance from God to open your eyes to receive His message in the bible, why are there so many variations of churches in existence since the Reformation? Why do some groups believe baptism washes away sins while others believe it is purely symbolic? Why do some groups cling to "covenant theology" while others believe in "dispensationalism" when interpreting the bible? Surely God would not allow everyone to come up with different conclusions of what His word means if they came to Him for guidance when reading the bible?

(1) I think the most crucial belief is that Jesus ALONE is the saviour...and that he died for your sins.
(2) There is no co-creator....or co-ruler (ie the Queen Mother)...
(3) The rest of theological controversies could be described as window dressings.
For instance, my church's stance on death and dying may differ from a Baptist church's teachings on death and dying.
Does it affect our salvation?? No.
I look for a church that can back up the majority of what it teaches with scripture.
Not merely one or two Bible verses...but multiple ones if necessary.
You also have to understand the context of what you are reading.
You can usually understand the verse better by reading the verse in front of it, and the one after it...to see if someone is not merely attempting to spin a verse to meet a situation for their own needs or beliefs.

I numbered the statements in bold for a response:

1) Catholics believe that Jesus in the Savior.

2) You have no understanding of Catholic teaching on Mary and her role.

3) That's one heck of an assumption - especially considering some Christians don't believe in the Trinity and some Christians don't believe that Baptism is necessary. I've seen a lot of divergent interpretations of John 3:3-8 with regards to baptism.

Out of curiosity, are you a KJV Onlyist? Is the NIV the work of the devil?

(06-23-2011 02:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 01:50 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 01:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 12:07 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-22-2011 02:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Ahhh you're an Atheist, That slipped my mind.. Thought I was talking to an "There is only a heaven" type of mushy Christian..

there is no such thing as an atheist.
No practical thinking human, can believe that everything that is in the physical world at this moment came from nothingness.
Therefore, something must have made it. Being that no one human posseses all known knowledge of the universe, or has been to each and every corner of the known universe....one cannot know that there is NOT a God.
I do believe that the perception of heel that a lot of people believe is flawed though....

I believe the Catholic CHurch is a very flawed system.
It relies on tradition, and the word of ONE man...this one man speaks blasphemies as mention in the Bible (ie claims to be able to change God's law), shall think to change times and laws (ie the day of Worship as mentioned in the 10 commandements. Have you SEEN the Catholic version of the 10 commandments? Compare it to what is found in the King James version, and you will notice that the King James #4 Commanment...obervance of the Sabbath and keeping it Holy has been removed. Instead, you will find one commandment split into two commandments)
Not all Catholics are lost, justr as not all people in the Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal Churches are saved.
It is why God says in the Bible "Come out of her my people"....

And this, my friends, is what you get when people pridefully interpret the bible and feel they have the true message while the unwashed masses who believe otherwise will die in their ignorance.

So tell me, if the scriptures can be opened to any person who by praying for guidance from God to open your eyes to receive His message in the bible, why are there so many variations of churches in existence since the Reformation? Why do some groups believe baptism washes away sins while others believe it is purely symbolic? Why do some groups cling to "covenant theology" while others believe in "dispensationalism" when interpreting the bible? Surely God would not allow everyone to come up with different conclusions of what His word means if they came to Him for guidance when reading the bible?

(1) I think the most crucial belief is that Jesus ALONE is the saviour...and that he died for your sins.
(2) There is no co-creator....or co-ruler (ie the Queen Mother)...
(3) The rest of theological controversies could be described as window dressings.
For instance, my church's stance on death and dying may differ from a Baptist church's teachings on death and dying.
Does it affect our salvation?? No.
I look for a church that can back up the majority of what it teaches with scripture.
Not merely one or two Bible verses...but multiple ones if necessary.
You also have to understand the context of what you are reading.
You can usually understand the verse better by reading the verse in front of it, and the one after it...to see if someone is not merely attempting to spin a verse to meet a situation for their own needs or beliefs.

I numbered the statements in bold for a response:

1) Catholics believe that Jesus in the Savior.

2) You have no understanding of Catholic teaching on Mary and her role.

3) That's one heck of an assumption - especially considering some Christians don't believe in the Trinity and some Christians don't believe that Baptism is necessary. I've seen a lot of divergent interpretations of John 3:3-8 with regards to baptism.

Out of curiosity, are you a KJV Onlyist? Is the NIV the work of the devil?

If I have no knowledge of Mary's role in the Catholic Church, what am I to make of THIS?

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967
The Mother, of God, Mother of Jesus, wife of St. Joseph, and the greatest of all Christian saints. The Virgin Mother “was, after her Son, exalted by divine grace above all angels and men”.

The belief that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven is one of the oldest traditions of the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII declared this belief Catholic dogma in 1950. The feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception - that Mary, as the Mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, was free of original sin at the moment of her conception was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854. (the Bible says even King David has not ascended into Heaven...and he was a man after God's own heart...)

The Bible records that after Mary had given birth to Jesus, she submitted a sin offering to the temple. WHY would she have to submit a sin offering...if she was an unsinful human?
Mary had other children....the Bible mentions them....or do you not know of James, Simon and Judas (not Iscariot) (what I am getting at...is that Mary had children after she had Jesus. She was no longer a virgin.)

as for why I do not use the NIV version of the bible...
In a word...I do not like the surgical deletions of its authors.
Entire words, verses have been removed from the NIV so as not to offend any sect of Christianity (they even tell you in the preface that they wanted to write their OWN Bible that would not offend anyone)
Whereas the King James Bible mentions the "Godhead" three times, the NIV has completely removed the word. You won't find the word "propitiation" in the NIV. In fact, all of the following words have been removed from the Bible by the NIV butchers: regeneration, mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, Messiah, quickened, infallible, fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit... One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.”

The NIV has removed over 64,000 words compared to the King James version. For that reason...I do not think it is a viable or even useable translation of the Holy Bible. Of the 54 times "hell" is mentioned in the King James Bible, the NIV reduces it down to 14 times.

with regards to baptism...i is a symbolic gesture...not necessary to salvation.
The moment you accept Jesus as your Saviour...you are saved. (important to note that that i not a eternal condition...ie you can lose it. Some folks think being saved is a license to sin)
It would be nice to be baptized if you could....but it is not a necessity.

(06-23-2011 02:36 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 02:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 01:50 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 01:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 12:07 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  there is no such thing as an atheist.
No practical thinking human, can believe that everything that is in the physical world at this moment came from nothingness.
Therefore, something must have made it. Being that no one human posseses all known knowledge of the universe, or has been to each and every corner of the known universe....one cannot know that there is NOT a God.
I do believe that the perception of heel that a lot of people believe is flawed though....

I believe the Catholic CHurch is a very flawed system.
It relies on tradition, and the word of ONE man...this one man speaks blasphemies as mention in the Bible (ie claims to be able to change God's law), shall think to change times and laws (ie the day of Worship as mentioned in the 10 commandements. Have you SEEN the Catholic version of the 10 commandments? Compare it to what is found in the King James version, and you will notice that the King James #4 Commanment...obervance of the Sabbath and keeping it Holy has been removed. Instead, you will find one commandment split into two commandments)
Not all Catholics are lost, justr as not all people in the Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal Churches are saved.
It is why God says in the Bible "Come out of her my people"....

And this, my friends, is what you get when people pridefully interpret the bible and feel they have the true message while the unwashed masses who believe otherwise will die in their ignorance.

So tell me, if the scriptures can be opened to any person who by praying for guidance from God to open your eyes to receive His message in the bible, why are there so many variations of churches in existence since the Reformation? Why do some groups believe baptism washes away sins while others believe it is purely symbolic? Why do some groups cling to "covenant theology" while others believe in "dispensationalism" when interpreting the bible? Surely God would not allow everyone to come up with different conclusions of what His word means if they came to Him for guidance when reading the bible?

(1) I think the most crucial belief is that Jesus ALONE is the saviour...and that he died for your sins.
(2) There is no co-creator....or co-ruler (ie the Queen Mother)...
(3) The rest of theological controversies could be described as window dressings.
For instance, my church's stance on death and dying may differ from a Baptist church's teachings on death and dying.
Does it affect our salvation?? No.
I look for a church that can back up the majority of what it teaches with scripture.
Not merely one or two Bible verses...but multiple ones if necessary.
You also have to understand the context of what you are reading.
You can usually understand the verse better by reading the verse in front of it, and the one after it...to see if someone is not merely attempting to spin a verse to meet a situation for their own needs or beliefs.

I numbered the statements in bold for a response:

1) Catholics believe that Jesus in the Savior.

2) You have no understanding of Catholic teaching on Mary and her role.

3) That's one heck of an assumption - especially considering some Christians don't believe in the Trinity and some Christians don't believe that Baptism is necessary. I've seen a lot of divergent interpretations of John 3:3-8 with regards to baptism.

Out of curiosity, are you a KJV Onlyist? Is the NIV the work of the devil?

If I have no knowledge of Mary's role in the Catholic Church, what am I to make of THIS?

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967
The Mother, of God, Mother of Jesus, wife of St. Joseph, and the greatest of all Christian saints. The Virgin Mother “was, after her Son, exalted by divine grace above all angels and men”.

The belief that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven is one of the oldest traditions of the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII declared this belief Catholic dogma in 1950. The feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception - that Mary, as the Mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, was free of original sin at the moment of her conception was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854. (the Bible says even King David has not ascended into Heaven...and he was a man after God's own heart...)

The Bible records that after Mary had given birth to Jesus, she submitted a sin offering to the temple. WHY would she have to submit a sin offering...if she was an unsinful human?
Mary had other children....the Bible mentions them....or do you not know of James, Simon and Judas (not Iscariot) (what I am getting at...is that Mary had children after she had Jesus. She was no longer a virgin.)

as for why I do not use the NIV version of the bible...
In a word...I do not like the surgical deletions of its authors.
Entire words, verses have been removed from the NIV so as not to offend any sect of Christianity (they even tell you in the preface that they wanted to write their OWN Bible that would not offend anyone)
Whereas the King James Bible mentions the "Godhead" three times, the NIV has completely removed the word. You won't find the word "propitiation" in the NIV. In fact, all of the following words have been removed from the Bible by the NIV butchers: regeneration, mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, Messiah, quickened, infallible, fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit... One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.”

The NIV has removed over 64,000 words compared to the King James version. For that reason...I do not think it is a viable or even useable translation of the Holy Bible.

with regards to baptism...i is a symbolic gesture...not necessary to salvation.
The moment you accept Jesus as your Saviour...you are saved.
It would be nice to be baptized if you could....but it is not a necessity.

You repeated the blurb but you have no understanding about why those statements were made in the first place. You assume people are making theological decisions out of whole cloth and in a vacuum. I don't blame you for misunderstanding because you probably never bothered to research the Catholic Church with guidance from a Catholic. You are likely succumbing to the misunderstandings and shoddy research done by Alexander Hislop.

So why do some Christian denominations reject the trinity? Why do some people teach that baptism is not necessary? No matter how much you pray before you read the bible, you are still using a filter or filters when you read it. Also, there are certain concepts that you would have never came up with on your own if the bible was your sole source of information. The Trinity was developed within the first few centuries in the various church councils. Yet this "unbiblical" concept is almost universally accepted by Catholics and protestants alike. You can thank the Catholic Church for your belief in the Trinity today.

(06-23-2011 02:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  2) You have no understanding of Catholic teaching on Mary and her role.

The words Co-Redemptrix come to mind.. Or maybe the Mediatrix?

Quote:That Mary is Mediatrix of graces at a level higher than the mediation of other saints is accepted without question in the Catholic Church. She is such in two ways: Mary gave birth to the Redeemer, who is the fountain of all grace. Therefore she participated in the mediating of grace. A second opinion states that Mary, assumed into heaven, participates in the mediating of divine graces of her son

In Roman Catholicism, Mariology is a logical and necessary consequence of Christology: Jesus and Mary are son and mother, redeemer and redeemed. Mariology is Christology developed to its full potential. In Catholic theology, Mary and her son Jesus are very close but not identical. Therefore, Marian teaching, while contributing to the teaching of Christ, is also a separate discipline, called Mariology. The figure of Mary contributes to a fuller understanding of who Christ is and what he did. In the Roman Catholic view, a Christology without Mary is incomplete because it is not based on the total revelation of the Bible.

Of course one of the *most* disturbing pieces of Catholic Dogma is that Mary was conceived without original sin (De fide), something that biblically can only be accounted to Christ himself!

(06-23-2011 02:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  So why do some Christian denominations reject the trinity? Why do some people teach that baptism is not necessary? No matter how much you pray before you read the bible, you are still using a filter or filters when you read it. Also, there are certain concepts that you would have never came up with on your own if the bible was your sole source of information. The Trinity was developed within the first few centuries in the various church councils. Yet this "unbiblical" concept is almost universally accepted by Catholics and protestants alike. You can thank the Catholic Church for your belief in the Trinity today.

Because they are wrong, as wrong as the Catholics are in their beliefs about Mary's role.

And yes the trinity is a salvation point! If you believe that God is not three in one, either being three total individuals not united as one Godhead or think somehow God 'takes turns' then you are worshiping something other than God.

This is just one area (and there are many) that exclude Mormons from Christianity.

(06-23-2011 02:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 02:36 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 02:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 01:50 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 01:36 PM)miko33 Wrote:  And this, my friends, is what you get when people pridefully interpret the bible and feel they have the true message while the unwashed masses who believe otherwise will die in their ignorance.

So tell me, if the scriptures can be opened to any person who by praying for guidance from God to open your eyes to receive His message in the bible, why are there so many variations of churches in existence since the Reformation? Why do some groups believe baptism washes away sins while others believe it is purely symbolic? Why do some groups cling to "covenant theology" while others believe in "dispensationalism" when interpreting the bible? Surely God would not allow everyone to come up with different conclusions of what His word means if they came to Him for guidance when reading the bible?

(1) I think the most crucial belief is that Jesus ALONE is the saviour...and that he died for your sins.
(2) There is no co-creator....or co-ruler (ie the Queen Mother)...
(3) The rest of theological controversies could be described as window dressings.
For instance, my church's stance on death and dying may differ from a Baptist church's teachings on death and dying.
Does it affect our salvation?? No.
I look for a church that can back up the majority of what it teaches with scripture.
Not merely one or two Bible verses...but multiple ones if necessary.
You also have to understand the context of what you are reading.
You can usually understand the verse better by reading the verse in front of it, and the one after it...to see if someone is not merely attempting to spin a verse to meet a situation for their own needs or beliefs.

I numbered the statements in bold for a response:

1) Catholics believe that Jesus in the Savior.

2) You have no understanding of Catholic teaching on Mary and her role.

3) That's one heck of an assumption - especially considering some Christians don't believe in the Trinity and some Christians don't believe that Baptism is necessary. I've seen a lot of divergent interpretations of John 3:3-8 with regards to baptism.

Out of curiosity, are you a KJV Onlyist? Is the NIV the work of the devil?

If I have no knowledge of Mary's role in the Catholic Church, what am I to make of THIS?

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967
The Mother, of God, Mother of Jesus, wife of St. Joseph, and the greatest of all Christian saints. The Virgin Mother “was, after her Son, exalted by divine grace above all angels and men”.

The belief that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven is one of the oldest traditions of the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII declared this belief Catholic dogma in 1950. The feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception - that Mary, as the Mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, was free of original sin at the moment of her conception was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854. (the Bible says even King David has not ascended into Heaven...and he was a man after God's own heart...)

The Bible records that after Mary had given birth to Jesus, she submitted a sin offering to the temple. WHY would she have to submit a sin offering...if she was an unsinful human?
Mary had other children....the Bible mentions them....or do you not know of James, Simon and Judas (not Iscariot) (what I am getting at...is that Mary had children after she had Jesus. She was no longer a virgin.)

as for why I do not use the NIV version of the bible...
In a word...I do not like the surgical deletions of its authors.
Entire words, verses have been removed from the NIV so as not to offend any sect of Christianity (they even tell you in the preface that they wanted to write their OWN Bible that would not offend anyone)
Whereas the King James Bible mentions the "Godhead" three times, the NIV has completely removed the word. You won't find the word "propitiation" in the NIV. In fact, all of the following words have been removed from the Bible by the NIV butchers: regeneration, mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, Messiah, quickened, infallible, fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit... One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.”

The NIV has removed over 64,000 words compared to the King James version. For that reason...I do not think it is a viable or even useable translation of the Holy Bible.

with regards to baptism...i is a symbolic gesture...not necessary to salvation.
The moment you accept Jesus as your Saviour...you are saved.
It would be nice to be baptized if you could....but it is not a necessity.

You repeated the blurb but you have no understanding about why those statements were made in the first place. You assume people are making theological decisions out of whole cloth and in a vacuum. I don't blame you for misunderstanding because you probably never bothered to research the Catholic Church with guidance from a Catholic. I was recruited by a Catholic in the 1980's. Mary is the compassionate one in Heaven. When you sin...Jesus is angry with you...and Mary is the go-between asking her son to go easy on you, which isn't biblical
You are likely succumbing to the misunderstandings and shoddy research done by Alexander Hislop.no...I'm not

So why do some Christian denominations reject the trinity? becauase they have not read the Bible perhaps? Used other versions of the Bible (such as the NIV perhaps) where words have been removed and thus meanings of verses changed. Why do some people teach that baptism is not necessary? Can you show me a set of verses where it is commanded in the King James Bible that you are baptized or damned? No matter how much you pray before you read the bible, you are still using a filter or filters when you read it. Also, there are certain concepts that you would have never came up with on your own if the bible was your sole source of information. The Trinity was developed within the first few centuries in the various church councils. Yet this "unbiblical" concept is almost universally accepted by Catholics and protestants alike. You can thank the Catholic Church for your belief in the Trinity today.

thats funny...I could have sworn that Christ Jesus asked people in the New Testament asked people to Baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We KNOW there is a family of sorts....in the beggining (Genesis) where God created heaven and earth God is translated into Elohim which is plural or more than ONE. If only ONE member of the Godhead were doing the creating...the word used would have been EL.)

Tips for not appearing crazy on the internet.

(06-23-2011 03:08 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 02:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 02:36 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 02:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 01:50 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  (1) I think the most crucial belief is that Jesus ALONE is the saviour...and that he died for your sins.
(2) There is no co-creator....or co-ruler (ie the Queen Mother)...
(3) The rest of theological controversies could be described as window dressings.
For instance, my church's stance on death and dying may differ from a Baptist church's teachings on death and dying.
Does it affect our salvation?? No.
I look for a church that can back up the majority of what it teaches with scripture.
Not merely one or two Bible verses...but multiple ones if necessary.
You also have to understand the context of what you are reading.
You can usually understand the verse better by reading the verse in front of it, and the one after it...to see if someone is not merely attempting to spin a verse to meet a situation for their own needs or beliefs.

I numbered the statements in bold for a response:

1) Catholics believe that Jesus in the Savior.

2) You have no understanding of Catholic teaching on Mary and her role.

3) That's one heck of an assumption - especially considering some Christians don't believe in the Trinity and some Christians don't believe that Baptism is necessary. I've seen a lot of divergent interpretations of John 3:3-8 with regards to baptism.

Out of curiosity, are you a KJV Onlyist? Is the NIV the work of the devil?

If I have no knowledge of Mary's role in the Catholic Church, what am I to make of THIS?

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967
The Mother, of God, Mother of Jesus, wife of St. Joseph, and the greatest of all Christian saints. The Virgin Mother “was, after her Son, exalted by divine grace above all angels and men”.

The belief that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven is one of the oldest traditions of the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII declared this belief Catholic dogma in 1950. The feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception - that Mary, as the Mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, was free of original sin at the moment of her conception was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854. (the Bible says even King David has not ascended into Heaven...and he was a man after God's own heart...)

The Bible records that after Mary had given birth to Jesus, she submitted a sin offering to the temple. WHY would she have to submit a sin offering...if she was an unsinful human?
Mary had other children....the Bible mentions them....or do you not know of James, Simon and Judas (not Iscariot) (what I am getting at...is that Mary had children after she had Jesus. She was no longer a virgin.)

as for why I do not use the NIV version of the bible...
In a word...I do not like the surgical deletions of its authors.
Entire words, verses have been removed from the NIV so as not to offend any sect of Christianity (they even tell you in the preface that they wanted to write their OWN Bible that would not offend anyone)
Whereas the King James Bible mentions the "Godhead" three times, the NIV has completely removed the word. You won't find the word "propitiation" in the NIV. In fact, all of the following words have been removed from the Bible by the NIV butchers: regeneration, mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, Messiah, quickened, infallible, fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit... One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.”

The NIV has removed over 64,000 words compared to the King James version. For that reason...I do not think it is a viable or even useable translation of the Holy Bible.

with regards to baptism...i is a symbolic gesture...not necessary to salvation.
The moment you accept Jesus as your Saviour...you are saved.
It would be nice to be baptized if you could....but it is not a necessity.

You repeated the blurb but you have no understanding about why those statements were made in the first place. You assume people are making theological decisions out of whole cloth and in a vacuum. I don't blame you for misunderstanding because you probably never bothered to research the Catholic Church with guidance from a Catholic. I was recruited by a Catholic in the 1980's. Mary is the compassionate one in Heaven. When you sin...Jesus is angry with you...and Mary is the go-between asking her son to go easy on you, which isn't biblical
You are likely succumbing to the misunderstandings and shoddy research done by Alexander Hislop.no...I'm not

So why do some Christian denominations reject the trinity? becauase they have not read the Bible perhaps? Used other versions of the Bible (such as the NIV perhaps) where words have been removed and thus meanings of verses changed. Why do some people teach that baptism is not necessary? Can you show me a set of verses where it is commanded in the King James Bible that you are baptized or damned? No matter how much you pray before you read the bible, you are still using a filter or filters when you read it. Also, there are certain concepts that you would have never came up with on your own if the bible was your sole source of information. The Trinity was developed within the first few centuries in the various church councils. Yet this "unbiblical" concept is almost universally accepted by Catholics and protestants alike. You can thank the Catholic Church for your belief in the Trinity today.

thats funny...I could have sworn that Christ Jesus asked people in the New Testament asked people to Baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We KNOW there is a family of sorts....in the beggining (Genesis) where God created heaven and earth God is translated into Elohim which is plural or more than ONE. If only ONE member of the Godhead were doing the creating...the word used would have been EL.)

Except for the fact that Elohim can be either a singular or a plural noun. Also, Elohim means god (God). If it was meant to be a plural noun, it would have meant more than one god was present. However, the definition of the Trinity is One God in 3 persons. There is no way that concept would have came through as the concept of the trinity. Since the verbs in the Genesis verse you reference are singular, the noun Elohim must be singular - one God. These ideas were heavily debated back and forth during the first couple of centuries by people who knew Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek a whole lot better than any scholars today. On top of that, the English versions of the bible were translated to ensure that these concepts are shown more clearly than in the original languages. It's sad that you have so much disdain for the Catholic Church, because the truth is that you are indebted to it for the Christian knowledge you have today. No matter how uncomfortable it makes you, you cannot change church history. You are not in a vacuum to willfully interpret the bible any way you care to. There is a context and meaning to the words that coincide with the original audience it was written for.

To the OP:
It all stems from the council of trent, the catholic response to the reformation. It essentially denies grace through faith and says that those who hold to it are cut off. So if you believe grace through faith in the reformation sense, both you and a catholic that holds to trent would be saying each other are cut off. If a catholic doesn't hold to trent I do not believe they are destined poorly and it comes down to grace through faith.

No Long Screeds

(06-23-2011 03:27 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 03:08 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 02:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 02:36 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 02:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I numbered the statements in bold for a response:

1) Catholics believe that Jesus in the Savior.

2) You have no understanding of Catholic teaching on Mary and her role.

3) That's one heck of an assumption - especially considering some Christians don't believe in the Trinity and some Christians don't believe that Baptism is necessary. I've seen a lot of divergent interpretations of John 3:3-8 with regards to baptism.

Out of curiosity, are you a KJV Onlyist? Is the NIV the work of the devil?

If I have no knowledge of Mary's role in the Catholic Church, what am I to make of THIS?

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967
The Mother, of God, Mother of Jesus, wife of St. Joseph, and the greatest of all Christian saints. The Virgin Mother “was, after her Son, exalted by divine grace above all angels and men”.

The belief that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven is one of the oldest traditions of the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII declared this belief Catholic dogma in 1950. The feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception - that Mary, as the Mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, was free of original sin at the moment of her conception was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854. (the Bible says even King David has not ascended into Heaven...and he was a man after God's own heart...)

The Bible records that after Mary had given birth to Jesus, she submitted a sin offering to the temple. WHY would she have to submit a sin offering...if she was an unsinful human?
Mary had other children....the Bible mentions them....or do you not know of James, Simon and Judas (not Iscariot) (what I am getting at...is that Mary had children after she had Jesus. She was no longer a virgin.)

as for why I do not use the NIV version of the bible...
In a word...I do not like the surgical deletions of its authors.
Entire words, verses have been removed from the NIV so as not to offend any sect of Christianity (they even tell you in the preface that they wanted to write their OWN Bible that would not offend anyone)
Whereas the King James Bible mentions the "Godhead" three times, the NIV has completely removed the word. You won't find the word "propitiation" in the NIV. In fact, all of the following words have been removed from the Bible by the NIV butchers: regeneration, mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, Messiah, quickened, infallible, fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit... One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.”

The NIV has removed over 64,000 words compared to the King James version. For that reason...I do not think it is a viable or even useable translation of the Holy Bible.

with regards to baptism...i is a symbolic gesture...not necessary to salvation.
The moment you accept Jesus as your Saviour...you are saved.
It would be nice to be baptized if you could....but it is not a necessity.

You repeated the blurb but you have no understanding about why those statements were made in the first place. You assume people are making theological decisions out of whole cloth and in a vacuum. I don't blame you for misunderstanding because you probably never bothered to research the Catholic Church with guidance from a Catholic. I was recruited by a Catholic in the 1980's. Mary is the compassionate one in Heaven. When you sin...Jesus is angry with you...and Mary is the go-between asking her son to go easy on you, which isn't biblical
You are likely succumbing to the misunderstandings and shoddy research done by Alexander Hislop.no...I'm not

So why do some Christian denominations reject the trinity? becauase they have not read the Bible perhaps? Used other versions of the Bible (such as the NIV perhaps) where words have been removed and thus meanings of verses changed. Why do some people teach that baptism is not necessary? Can you show me a set of verses where it is commanded in the King James Bible that you are baptized or damned? No matter how much you pray before you read the bible, you are still using a filter or filters when you read it. Also, there are certain concepts that you would have never came up with on your own if the bible was your sole source of information. The Trinity was developed within the first few centuries in the various church councils. Yet this "unbiblical" concept is almost universally accepted by Catholics and protestants alike. You can thank the Catholic Church for your belief in the Trinity today.

thats funny...I could have sworn that Christ Jesus asked people in the New Testament asked people to Baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We KNOW there is a family of sorts....in the beggining (Genesis) where God created heaven and earth God is translated into Elohim which is plural or more than ONE. If only ONE member of the Godhead were doing the creating...the word used would have been EL.)

Except for the fact that Elohim can be either a singular or a plural noun. Also, Elohim means god (God)(Just because it can be plural does not mean that it was. If it was meant to be a plural noun, it would have meant more than one god was present. However, the definition of the Trinity is One God in 3 persons. There is no way that concept would have came through as the concept of the trinity. Since the verbs in the Genesis verse you reference are singular, the noun Elohim must be singular - one God.Not necessarily. Jesus called out to God the Father on the Cross "Eli...Eli...." which is used in the singular sense SINGULAR not the plural. These ideas were heavily debated back and forth during the first couple of centuries by people who knew Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek a whole lot better than any scholars today. Who also came up with the Douray version of the Bible that is also the scutt of much debate. If it stopped there...maybe there would not be so much debate...except that The Vatican is up on making other translations of the Bible. Look at the Jehovah's Witness version of the bible. Made by 'Vatican Press'...can it get any clarer than THAT? On top of that, the English versions of the bible were translated to ensure that these concepts are shown more clearly than in the original languages. The King James version of the bible came about with the scribes being watched closely so that they could not delete words or verses or change anything that was not present in the translation. King James also survived an assasination attempt as his people were working on the King James version...the plot was linked back to the Catholic Church It's sad that you have so much disdain for the Catholic Church, because the truth is that you are indebted to it for the Christian knowledge you have today. No matter how uncomfortable it makes you, you cannot change church history. You are not in a vacuum to willfully interpret the bible any way you care to. There is a context and meaning to the words that coincide with the original audience it was written for.

the Catholic Church is not the only Christian church that has ever existed. I know this thought may boggle your mind....but its the truth.
I do not disdain Catholics...I pity them. Their histories have been so distorted...they do not know the truth. Any person or people who tried to OWN a Bible in the Dark Ages was PUT TO DEATH. If you did not agree that the Pope was infallible or God's vicar on Earth, you were sentenced to death. I find it hard to believe that these actions would have been advocated by anyone following the teachings or wisdom of Christ Jesus.

(06-23-2011 03:31 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  To the OP:
It all stems from the council of trent, the catholic response to the reformation. It essentially denies grace through faith and says that those who hold to it are cut off. So if you believe grace through faith in the reformation sense, both you and a catholic that holds to trent would be saying each other are cut off. If a catholic doesn't hold to trent I do not believe they are destined poorly and it comes down to grace through faith.

But that is not exactly true. Catholics have always believed in grace through faith. The Catholic view is always distilled to the "faith + works" requirement as opposed to the Protestant view of "Faith Alone". But in the end, both concepts actually square up pretty well and reverts back to faith through grace. The bottom line that I've seen from both Catholics and Protestants is that if someone truly has faith through grace, then they will be motivated to do good works. If you say you have faith through grace, but you don't live your faith, do you really have it in the first place? Both Catholics and Protestants would largely agree the answer to this is no.

Organized religious denominations like Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, etc realize that just showing up to church once a week is not enough to be saved. I've seen too many non-denominational types set up straw man arguments that imply that those who belong to the RCC or denominations founded during the Reformation think they are saved because they belong to an organized denomination and show up to church. These non-denominational types fail to realize that the moment they step foot into one of their 40K seat auditorium style churches, they are "organized" too...

(06-23-2011 03:47 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Organized religious denominations like Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, etc realize that just showing up to church once a week is enough to be saved.

What? Just attending is good enough? Attendance has nothing to do with it. I can go to church because my family gave me a guilt trip, and never accept the real Christ, and I won't be saved. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's like being a Senator and just voting "present".

(06-23-2011 03:45 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 03:27 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 03:08 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 02:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 02:36 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  If I have no knowledge of Mary's role in the Catholic Church, what am I to make of THIS?

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4967
The Mother, of God, Mother of Jesus, wife of St. Joseph, and the greatest of all Christian saints. The Virgin Mother “was, after her Son, exalted by divine grace above all angels and men”.

The belief that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven is one of the oldest traditions of the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII declared this belief Catholic dogma in 1950. The feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception - that Mary, as the Mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, was free of original sin at the moment of her conception was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854. (the Bible says even King David has not ascended into Heaven...and he was a man after God's own heart...)

The Bible records that after Mary had given birth to Jesus, she submitted a sin offering to the temple. WHY would she have to submit a sin offering...if she was an unsinful human?
Mary had other children....the Bible mentions them....or do you not know of James, Simon and Judas (not Iscariot) (what I am getting at...is that Mary had children after she had Jesus. She was no longer a virgin.)

as for why I do not use the NIV version of the bible...
In a word...I do not like the surgical deletions of its authors.
Entire words, verses have been removed from the NIV so as not to offend any sect of Christianity (they even tell you in the preface that they wanted to write their OWN Bible that would not offend anyone)
Whereas the King James Bible mentions the "Godhead" three times, the NIV has completely removed the word. You won't find the word "propitiation" in the NIV. In fact, all of the following words have been removed from the Bible by the NIV butchers: regeneration, mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, Messiah, quickened, infallible, fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit... One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.”

The NIV has removed over 64,000 words compared to the King James version. For that reason...I do not think it is a viable or even useable translation of the Holy Bible.

with regards to baptism...i is a symbolic gesture...not necessary to salvation.
The moment you accept Jesus as your Saviour...you are saved.
It would be nice to be baptized if you could....but it is not a necessity.

You repeated the blurb but you have no understanding about why those statements were made in the first place. You assume people are making theological decisions out of whole cloth and in a vacuum. I don't blame you for misunderstanding because you probably never bothered to research the Catholic Church with guidance from a Catholic. I was recruited by a Catholic in the 1980's. Mary is the compassionate one in Heaven. When you sin...Jesus is angry with you...and Mary is the go-between asking her son to go easy on you, which isn't biblical
You are likely succumbing to the misunderstandings and shoddy research done by Alexander Hislop.no...I'm not

So why do some Christian denominations reject the trinity? becauase they have not read the Bible perhaps? Used other versions of the Bible (such as the NIV perhaps) where words have been removed and thus meanings of verses changed. Why do some people teach that baptism is not necessary? Can you show me a set of verses where it is commanded in the King James Bible that you are baptized or damned? No matter how much you pray before you read the bible, you are still using a filter or filters when you read it. Also, there are certain concepts that you would have never came up with on your own if the bible was your sole source of information. The Trinity was developed within the first few centuries in the various church councils. Yet this "unbiblical" concept is almost universally accepted by Catholics and protestants alike. You can thank the Catholic Church for your belief in the Trinity today.

thats funny...I could have sworn that Christ Jesus asked people in the New Testament asked people to Baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We KNOW there is a family of sorts....in the beggining (Genesis) where God created heaven and earth God is translated into Elohim which is plural or more than ONE. If only ONE member of the Godhead were doing the creating...the word used would have been EL.)

Except for the fact that Elohim can be either a singular or a plural noun. Also, Elohim means god (God)(Just because it can be plural does not mean that it was. If it was meant to be a plural noun, it would have meant more than one god was present. However, the definition of the Trinity is One God in 3 persons. There is no way that concept would have came through as the concept of the trinity. Since the verbs in the Genesis verse you reference are singular, the noun Elohim must be singular - one God.Not necessarily. Jesus called out to God the Father on the Cross "Eli...Eli...." which is used in the singular sense SINGULAR not the plural. These ideas were heavily debated back and forth during the first couple of centuries by people who knew Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek a whole lot better than any scholars today. Who also came up with the Douray version of the Bible that is also the scutt of much debate. If it stopped there...maybe there would not be so much debate...except that The Vatican is up on making other translations of the Bible. Look at the Jehovah's Witness version of the bible. Made by 'Vatican Press'...can it get any clarer than THAT? On top of that, the English versions of the bible were translated to ensure that these concepts are shown more clearly than in the original languages. The King James version of the bible came about with the scribes being watched closely so that they could not delete words or verses or change anything that was not present in the translation. King James also survived an assasination attempt as his people were working on the King James version...the plot was linked back to the Catholic Church It's sad that you have so much disdain for the Catholic Church, because the truth is that you are indebted to it for the Christian knowledge you have today. No matter how uncomfortable it makes you, you cannot change church history. You are not in a vacuum to willfully interpret the bible any way you care to. There is a context and meaning to the words that coincide with the original audience it was written for.

the Catholic Church is not the only Christian church that has ever existed. I know this thought may boggle your mind....but its the truth.
I do not disdain Catholics...I pity them. Their histories have been so distorted...they do not know the truth. Any person or people who tried to OWN a Bible in the Dark Ages was PUT TO DEATH. If you did not agree that the Pope was infallible or God's vicar on Earth, you were sentenced to death. I find it hard to believe that these actions would have been advocated by anyone following the teachings or wisdom of Christ Jesus.

Show proof that history was distorted. This implies that the history we all learned in school is different, and somehow you have the "true" history.

Regarding the "Dark Ages Bibles", you do realize that over 90% of the population was illiterate and they were not buying bibles during this time period. And even if you could read, the chances of you being able to afford a bible was pretty slim. Combine this with the fact that many of the nobles that could afford a bible were illiterate. In fact, the vast majority of the people who could read and write were the monks, priests and bishops of the Catholic Church. In fact, it was the Catholic Church that preserved knowledge during the Dark Ages so that Western Europe did not turn into a morass of ignorance. You can continue to believe in the lies and propaganda foisted on you by Alexander Hislop if you care to. But rest assured that much of your perception is clouded by ignorance as it pertains to the Catholic Church.

Now regarding how the Church enforced the rules, yes, they were rather heavy handed in that department. So were the Jews before them, the feudal system and even the Reformation itself. John Calvin put people to death for "blasphemy" and protestants killed "witches" in Massachusetts. Don't try to make the Catholic Church the only religion were evil was committed in its name. We are all still human btw.

(06-23-2011 03:58 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(06-23-2011 03:47 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Organized religious denominations like Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, etc realize that just showing up to church once a week is enough to be saved.

What? Just attending is good enough? Attendance has nothing to do with it. I can go to church because my family gave me a guilt trip, and never accept the real Christ, and I won't be saved. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's like being a Senator and just voting "present".

I edited my statement in my post. I meant to write that Organized Religions believe that just showing up to church is not enough. There is a lot more to it than just that.