Coming Chastisement/Cleansing of the World

[Not A Communist Shill]

Jesus, who is the Way, the Light and the Truth, and Who is our Redeemer, said, "No man comes to the Father except by me." Yes, and in light of that, I offer you this, and may you be blessed: Heaven Speaks to Those Who Don't Know Jesus.

There is no reason to think that the words attributed to Jesus in the bible are anymore trustful than the central texts of Islam, Mormonism, or Scientology. There isn't even any evidence that Jesus said or wrote those words.

Also, we have talked previously on what the biblical Jesus believed happens when you die. Jewish belief is that once you are dead, you are dead until the day of judgement, and the biblical Jesus's views (and those of the early church) said that you must repent before you die, there is no chance after.

While the idea of a second chance for salvation is appealing, the Bible is clear that death is the end of all chances. Hebrews 9:27 tells us that we die, and then face judgment. So, as long as a person is alive, he has a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. chance to accept Christ and be saved (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31). Once a person dies, there are no more chances. The idea of purgatory, a place where people go after death to pay for their sins, has no biblical basis, but is rather a tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.

To understand what happens to nonbelievers after they die, we go to Revelation 20:11-15 which describes the Great White Throne judgment. Here takes place the opening of the books and “the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” The books contain all the thoughts and deeds of those being judged, and we know from Romans 3:20 that “by the works of the Law is no flesh justified.” Therefore, all who are judged by their works and thoughts are condemned to hell. Believers in Christ, on the other hand, are not judged by the books of works, but their names are found written in another book—the “Lamb’s Book of Life” (Revelation 21:27). These are the ones who have believed on the Lord Jesus, and they alone will be allowed to enter heaven.

The key to understanding this is the Lamb’s Book of Life. Anyone whose name is written in this book was “saved before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4) by God’s sovereign saving grace to be part of His Son’s bride, the church of Jesus Christ. These people need no “second chance” at salvation because their salvation has been secured by Christ. He chose us, He saved us, and He will keep us saved. Nothing can separate us from Christ (Romans 8:39). Those for whom He died will be saved because Jesus will see to it. He declared “all that the Father has given me will come to me” (John 6:37), and “I give to them eternal life, and they shall never ever perish, and not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand” (John 10:28). For believers, there is no need for a second chance because the first chance is sufficient.

What about those who do not believe? Wouldn’t they repent and believe if they were given a second chance? The answer is no, they would not because their hearts are not changed simply because they die. Their hearts and minds “are at enmity” against God and won’t accept Him even when they see Him face to face. This is evidenced clearly in the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. If ever someone should have repented when given a second chance to see clearly the truth, it was the rich man. But although he was in torment in hell, he only asked that Abraham send Lazarus back to earth to warn his brothers so they didn’t have to suffer the same fate. There was no repentance in his heart, only regret for where he found himself. Abraham’s answer says it all: “And he said to him, If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded, even though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31). Here we see that the witness of the Scriptures is sufficient for salvation for those who believe it, and no other revelation will bring about salvation to those who do not. No second, third or fourth chances would be enough to turn the heart of stone into a heart of flesh.

Philippians 2:10-11 declares “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” One day, everyone will bow before Jesus and recognize that He is the Lord and Savior. At that point, though, it is too late for salvation. After death, all that remains for the unbeliever is judgment (Revelation 20:14-15). That is why we must trust in Him in this life.

http://www.gotquestions.org/second-c...salvation.html

[Jeremy8419]

You people sure are obsessed with religion lol

[Not A Communist Shill]

Well, I hope I explained it above. The LSE example might help. I don't "first, second" it. Its just two parts of who I am. I have in-common with Christians, and in-common with IEEs. I think that's why that spiritual -styles article appealed to me, because there are so many different Catholic spiritualities (ways of practicing your spirtuality), and yes, they suit different kinds of people. Hmm, what would you be, Aylen? Maybe Benedictine - spiritual battles. If I have characterized that correctly. Yes, you need a Benedictine Cross, Aylen. Keeps you safe. Here: Attachment 7335
(I would be more than happy to send you a blessed one, if you want).

Interesting that Benedict created order for the monastic orders, still practiced/lived to the letter the world over these 15 centuries - and I see you, like me, tending to be more the "sail needing a rudder". Benedict had a sturdy rudder. And he sailed - so high.

"Keeps you safe"? Do you seriously mean that? You place such value in such objects? This seems the very embodiment of cultish behaviour to me, and symbolic of the idolatry Protestants have historically accused Catholics of.

[Eliza Thomason]

You may not be the best person to give answers, but god never shows me anything, despite always wishing to know.

Really? Well, I will pray about that. There must be some reason. Sometimes do you think that's its because you don't really want to know? Because God is not going to violate that. I know because sometimes I pray for God's help to stop some sin or shortcoming in my life. And I don't seem to be getting the help with that even though I keep asking. Then I wonder, do I really want help, or is this shortcoming something I sort of like? So I ask God to help me to want to want to do His will. So if you think there is something to that with God not showing you things, you could pray, "Help me to want to want to see it your way."

You say it looked to all the world like a marriage, except to god...but the truth is, god had no opinion on the matter, and you conveniently found a solution that suited your own interests.

Well the reason I can have complete confidence in this is because Jesus gave the apostles the right to bind things on earth, and said that they would then be bound in Heaven as well. We participated in the formal investigative process that the Church developed according to all the proper forms, and in the end the Church deemed officially, for both of our previous marriages, that they "never were". So since it is absolutely official with the Church Jesus founded on earth, I can have 100% confidence that it is okay in Heaven. And its a GREAT thing. Among other things, I find it EASY to get along with my dh's ex, (an important person, as she is the mother of his children), and that confidence that we are right with God in this (our marraige) is a big part of that. And I am grateful!

I think you are possibly playing on the technicality that someone who is a homosexual but has not committed a homosexual act will be accepted by the church. The Catholic Church certainly believe that homosexual acts are sinful, and if you commit them without repenting for them, you will go to hell.

Well, let me explain it this way. Adultery is also a mortal sin. And my understanding is that if I were to carry on a fantasy-affair in my mind while I was married, then that is adultery. How serious it is I think depends on how long I continue on in my mind-affair after I am quite convinced that God doesn't want me doing it. So you see, there are circumstances that only God knows. That is why we are not to judge others. I am not that schooled in moral theology. However, priests are very good with moral theology, having much well-developed training, and I would ask a good priest anything I was not sure of. Not in confession if it did not involve me, though. Because the response would always be the same: "Confess your own sins!" (I have heard that at least twice in confession, when needlessly explaining how (someone else me me do it"...).

It is similar to the church's treatment of those who committed suicide...or merely for dying without being baptised...they did not want to bury you in consecrated ground, but went to lengths to ostracize you even in death.

Some things are practice not doctrine or dogma. These are not a practiced now anywhere as far as I know. (I am not sure about the consecrated ground thing - I have few Catholic relatives, and none of them dead). I think in past days it was an effective deterrent for suicides, and also with the burial, the importance of baptism was imprinted on many peoples minds, much to the great benefit of the people. But now the Church has decided that in these times that those practices deter more than they help, so they have changed practices with the times. It not being a dogma or doctrine, it is allowed to change. But dogma will never change, no matter how the times do. And when times change drastically, there is pressure on unpopular doctrine, resulting in martyrs for the faith. The faith takes a beating - but it stands..

Suicide is a serious sin. But we cannot judge, because only God knows the heart and circumstances. We can hope, and we are grateful it is a God of Mercy whom we hope in. And we can pray, as we should pray for all who have died, and particularly for those we feel have died in serious sin. So says the Catholic Church .. and Judas Maccabees ... and I believe it..

"The prayer of a righteous man available much." [Which is why I often ask for intercession of Saints in hard cases, since it would not be prudent to rely on my own righteousness.].

By the way, if suicide is a mortal sin, why is it alright when Jesus does it?

"I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself."

It'd be quite a feat to crucify yourself....

[Jeremy8419]

You either have the grace of God, or you do not. Then you have Subtleigh and myself and etc., who God likes to troll lol.

[Eliza Thomason]

"Keeps you safe"? Do you seriously mean that? You place such value in such objects? This seems the very embodiment of cultish behavior to me, and symbolic of the idolatry Protestants have historically accused Catholics of.

I place value in the prayers behind them. Yes, it seems cultish, but I believe it. Also with the definition you gave of cult above, it might fit (cult of a Saint). Yes, Protestants would likely call it idolatry. So they believe. I respect their belief, as God does. But in fact it is efficacious, and blessed of God. The intercession of Saints is powerful. If one were to use it superstitiously, I suppose then yes, God would treat it that way and it would not be a blessing. But I think the blessing of it would have some sort of latent power.. I don't know; I am just guessing. But if she decided to let me send her one, it would be accompanied by my prayers and requests to St. Benedict, so i would be confident of its help...

[Eliza Thomason]

Behold, its Jeremy! Aw, I must get to bed...

[Kim]

As far as the time frame to repent, I addressed that. As you can see, God is merciful.

Oh, after death. Okay, so you get the extent of God's mercy. Okay lets take another sin. Thou shalt not kill. Can you think of good reasons why someone would have good or understandable reason to kill? Well, there are extenuating circumstances for every kind of sin, including those not explicitly stated in the Ten Commandments, so therefore, even though we know a sin is mortal we cannot know how God will judge the person.That is why the Catholics, and mainstream Christians, will NOT take over the job of judging which is for God alone - explicitly forbidden by our doctrine and by the doctrines of other Christians - and say that God has condemned a person. We can clearly say what God says not to do. But we cannot say how God will judge.

I feel like that is not the answer you want to hear. It woud be easier on you if I said yes, then you could say, "Well that's not a good God", and be done with it - subject closed! But, its the only answer I've got.

What's the point of mortal sin then? If it's all relative?

I feel like on the one hand you are saying "you are gay/have killed/masturbate and I worry about you because these are mortal sins and I will pray for you," but when people criticize your god for making these mortal sins, you say he is merciful and it depends on why people are gay/have killed/masturbate" (even if they don't repent).

As a side note, I don't think anyone should have to suffer eternal damnation for anything. Not even Hitl.er or other people who have committed evil acts. Sister Helen Prejean wrote: "people are more than the worst thing they have ever done in their lives." She is a Catholic nun who works to abolish the death penalty and I heard her speak once. I probably have never met anyone with such genuine compassion (she also met with the Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and spoke on his behalf during trial).

She does not believe in eternal damnation:

HP: Religion has also been manipulated and made into a huge banking system.
And it’s based on fear. Totally on fear. The fear of hell. You take that away out of
religion, and religion… that kind of religion… will lose all its power. On the fear of being
plunged into hell...and then explore hell. What kind of being would plunge people into
eternal punishment over an over for all eternity? That there is no possibility of evolving
or remorse, or being? Of change? That’s a projection onto God too.

RB: Do you believe in the theology of hell?
HP: The problem with hell… What does that reality mean, that you’re fixed for all eternity in being separated from
God, and then fire and gnashing of teeth? And it is all throughout the Bible. The trouble
is with the whole violence thing… is that it’s sprinkled all though the Bible and the New
Testament, including the book of Revelation, which has Christ coming in the Second
Coming with his “mouth like a sword” consuming the enemies. We have huge Biblical
illiteracy in the country and the study of the Bible. There’s a thrust toward liberation of
people, respect for people, love for people. And that book, Jesus Before Christianity,
can really give you a sense of the heart and thrust within the life of Jesus. And that is
incompatible with putting people in a big iron skillet and burning them for all eternity.

I don't think you can be truly compassionate and loving and subject people to eternal damnation (or sanction this).

[Jeremy8419]

"I don't believe in free will."

[Not A Communist Shill]

Really? Well, I will pray about that. There must be some reason. Sometimes do you think that's its because you don't really want to know? Because God is not going to violate that. I know because sometimes I pray for God's help to stop some sin or shortcoming in my life. And I don't seem to be getting the help with that even though I keep asking. Then I wonder, do I really want help, or is this shortcoming something I sort of like? So I ask God to help me to want to want to do His will. So if you think there is something to that with God not showing you things, you could pray, "Help me to want to want to see it your way."

No, I have absolutely wanted my questions concerning god and religion being answered, especially when I believed in god. But I do not see why believing in god is necessary in order to find him, as you seem to imply. That seems contrary to all sense. It should be god who seeks me in any case, not the other way round, because he presumably knows I exist and hs infinite time to find me.

Well the reason I can have complete confidence in this is because Jesus gave the apostles the right to bind things on earth, and said that they would then be bound in Heaven as well. We participated in the formal investigative process that the Church developed according to all the proper forms, and in the end the Church deemed officially, for both of our previous marriages, that they "never were". So since it is absolutely official with the Church Jesus founded on earth, I can have 100% confidence that it is okay in Heaven. And its a GREAT thing. Among other things, I find it EASY to get along with my dh's ex, (an important person, as she is the mother of his children), and that confidence that we are right with God in this (our marraige) is a big part of that. And I am grateful!

The truth is, Jesus has never spoken to you or anybody else on the matter.

Well, let me explain it this way. Adultery is also a mortal sin. And my understanding is that if I were to carry on a fantasy-affair in my mind while I was married, then that is adultery. How serious it is I think depends on how long I continue on in my mind-affair after I am quite convinced that God doesn't want me doing it. So you see, there are circumstances that only God knows. That is why we are not to judge others. I am not that schooled in moral theology. However, priests are very good with moral theology, having much well-developed training, and I would ask a good priest anything I was not sure of. Not in confession if it did not involve me, though. Because the response would always be the same: "Confess your own sins!" (I have heard that at least twice in confession, when needlessly explaining how (someone else me me do it"...).

There is no need for priests for confessions, even according to Scripture.

Some things are practice not doctrine or dogma. These are not a practiced now anywhere as far as I know. (I am not sure about the consecrated ground thing - I have few Catholic relatives, and none of them dead). I think in past days it was an effective deterrent for suicides, and also with the burial, the importance of baptism was imprinted on many peoples minds, much to the great benefit of the people. But now the Church has decided that in these times that those practices deter more than they help, so they have changed practices with the times. It not being a dogma or doctrine, it is allowed to change. But dogma will never change, no matter how the times do. And when times change drastically, there is pressure on unpopular doctrine, resulting in martyrs for the faith. The faith takes a beating - but it stands..

Suicide is a serious sin. But we cannot judge, because only God knows the heart and circumstances. We can hope, and we are grateful it is a God of Mercy whom we hope in. And we can pray, as we should pray for all who have died, and particularly for those we feel have died in serious sin. So says the Catholic Church .. and Judas Maccabees ... and I believe it..

I would say that suicide is the act of a distressed mind,and can never be considered sinful. It should only be something that should be considered with great sympathy. Your Christ does have this attitude.

It is good that the Church has admitted that its actions were wrong in some area however, after being moderated by humanist values.

"The prayer of a righteous man available much." [Which is why I often ask for intercession of Saints in hard cases, since it would not be prudent to rely on my own righteousness.].

It'd be quite a feat to crucify yourself....

You have never heard of the phenomenon "suicide by cop"?

By the way, non-divine humans have been able to crucify themselves in the name of Christ, which has resulted in fatal consequences. I am sure Christ could have managed it, with the deathwish that he had.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I place value in the prayers behind them. Yes, it seems cultish, but I believe it. Also with the definition you gave of cult above, it might fit (cult of a Saint). Yes, Protestants would likely call it idolatry. So they believe. I respect their belief, as God does. But in fact it is efficacious, and blessed of God. The intercession of Saints is powerful. If one were to use it superstitiously, I suppose then yes, God would treat it that way and it would not be a blessing. But I think the blessing of it would have some sort of latent power.. I don't know; I am just guessing. But if she decided to let me send her one, it would be accompanied by my prayers and requests to St. Benedict, so i would be confident of its help...

Benedict is dead until the day of Judgement, according to Christian scripture, as is Mary. Apart from the fact that in the Christian faith, Jesus is the Intercessor, not Mary or any of the other Catholic saints, praying to saints is idolatry.

In regards necklaces, medallions, rosaries, relics, icons, shrines etc. ...they are all idolatry according to Christianity, as god does not reside in physical objects. He is all around, and present in his people. For you to say that an item gives you particular protection is thus quite plainly idolatry.

[Not A Communist Shill]

As far as the time frame to repent, I addressed that. As you can see, God is merciful.

Oh, after death. Okay, so you get the extent of God's mercy. Okay lets take another sin. Thou shalt not kill. Can you think of good reasons why someone would have good or understandable reason to kill? Well, there are extenuating circumstances for every kind of sin, including those not explicitly stated in the Ten Commandments, so therefore, even though we know a sin is mortal we cannot know how God will judge the person.That is why the Catholics, and mainstream Christians, will NOT take over the job of judging which is for God alone - explicitly forbidden by our doctrine and by the doctrines of other Christians - and say that God has condemned a person. We can clearly say what God says not to do. But we cannot say how God will judge.

I feel like that is not the answer you want to hear. It woud be easier on you if I said yes, then you could say, "Well that's not a good God", and be done with it - subject closed! But, its the only answer I've got.

It is perhaps "thou shall not murder" rather than "thou shall not kill". Killing is permitted when god does it, or when god permits it, even if it means the killing of babies. I'm not sure we can clearly say what the Abrahamic god will not do, because it is clear he is intent on torturing mortals for eternity (the greatest evil ever devised), and has wiped out almost the entirety of humanity on one occasion, and condoned genocide, slavery, rape, and child-killing on other occasions.

[Eliza Thomason]

@Aylen, that gnostic gospel stuff - its stupid tripe. Easily dismissed centuries ago. A bunch of misogynists wrote them, apparently, looking at these quotes. Look:

From "The Gospel of Thomas":

"Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too
may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female
who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

And this is just a tip of the iceberg as to what is wrong with the gnostics. The only reason they are still around is there are people in every generation that are titillated with the idea that they have access to some special "secret" knowledge.


____________________________________

@Penny, Sister Helen Prejean is a media baby. She loves the spotlight, and she gets it, calling herself "pro-life" while she has nothing to say for the innocent unborn, nothing for the condemned to death because their quality of life is ruled "not good enough" but only for those evil hardened criminals who are a clear danger to society. But no one would pay attention to her for the former, only the latter fetches the wow-crowd. Her theology is from the 60s and 70s, and it can stay there. Her time is over, however, but the media love her for the perversion of Catholicism she stands for. Maybe if they interview and extol her enough, people will think this is what Catholics actually believe. Nope, the media is no friend of Catholicism. Nor is Prejean, who battles windmills with her thoughts on hell here. What she battles does not exist...

But I don't want to talk about Helen Prejean. She is not worth my time. There are so many wonderful nuns now, and all the orders with the Prejeans in charge are dying. They are dead, or at least, limping along on their last lame legs, along with her brand of theology, that has no life in it. Meanwhile, the orders that teach the actual Catholic Faith are growing. That's where the vocations are booming, that's what the young people want now. Something true and real.

Mother Angelica. There is one POWERFUL woman, who is worth my time. I admire that powerhouse SO MUCH. I believe her long expiation ended here on earth and she advocates for us from Heaven now.

[Kim]

@Penny, Sister Helen Prejean is a media baby. She loves the spotlight, and she gets it, calling herself "pro-life" while she has nothing to say for the innocent unborn, nothing for the condemned to death because their quality of life is ruled "not good enough" but only for those evil hardened criminals who are a clear danger to society. But no one would pay attention to her for the former, only the latter fetches the wow-crowd. Her theology is from the 60s and 70s, and it can stay there. Her time is over, however, but the media love her for the perversion of Catholicism she stands for. Maybe if they interview and extol her enough, people will think this is what Catholics actually believe. Nope, the media is no friend of Catholicism. Nor is Prejean, who battles windmills with her thoughts on hell here. What she battles does not exist...

But I don't want to talk about Helen Prejean. She is not worth my time. There are so many wonderful nuns now, and all the orders with the Prejeans in charge are dying. They are dead, or at least, limping along on their last lame legs, along with her brand of theology, that has no life in it. Meanwhile, the orders that teach the actual Catholic Faith are growing. That's where the vocations are booming, that's what the young people want now. Something true and real.

Mother Angelica. There is one POWERFUL woman, who is worth my time. I admire that powerhouse SO MUCH. I believe her long expiation ended here on earth and she advocates for us from Heaven now.

Showing compassion for the innocent is easy, but showing compassion for murderers and leading them on a better path (or at least helping them die in peace) is true compassion. It's what Jesus would do.

I don't mean to be offensive, but to judge a woman who does true work, puts herself through emotional and spiritual agony to be an ear for people society has shunned because they went down a wrong path, watches people she cares about be executed to make sure they have at least one loving face to look at before they die because she disagrees with you about doctrine is pretty rich. Who are you to claim authority over the Catholic faith and judge this woman?


Everything about your post is arrogant, vain, and written from the comfort of your comfortable chair. How about you go out and do the hard work before you judge people?

[Kim]

This is exactly what happens when "Christians" put their own adherence to arbitrary rules for the sake of their own "salvation" over compassion and love for others. They start to bicker and judge over absolutely nothing.

[Not A Communist Shill]

@Aylen, that gnostic gospel stuff - its stupid tripe. Easily dismissed centuries ago. A bunch of misogynists wrote them, apparently, looking at these quotes. Look:

From "The Gospel of Thomas":

"Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too
may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female
who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

And this is just a tip of the iceberg as to what is wrong with the gnostics. The only reason they are still around is there are people in every generation that are titillated with the idea that they have access to some special "secret" knowledge.

erm, the biblical Simon and Paul were hardly better for their views on women.

I don't think the Gnostics WERE easily dismissed centuries ago, at least in terms of what they tell us of the early mythology of the Christian church. Most if not all of the apostles were fictional, and all of their lives' stories were made up. Thomas being drawn as a "twin" of Christ would make complete sense given the stories.

[Jeremy8419]

"The truth is, Jesus has never spoken to you or anybody else on the matter."
This is an assumption.

"There is no need for priests for confessions, even according to Scripture."
"I confess to you, Almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters"
When you're truly sorry, you apologize because you want to, not because you have to. The priest is there to give both witness for God and for man.

[Not A Communist Shill]

"The truth is, Jesus has never spoken to you or anybody else on the matter."
This is an assumption.

No, it is not. The supernatural Jesus does not exist, as the supernatural does not exist, and the historical Jesus (if he existed at all) is not at all likely to be alive in the 21st century, especially as even the biased Christian sources described him as being killed in the first century. The contemporary histories do not mention Jesus, and even the histories a lengthy time after Jesus's presumed death in about 33 AD do not mention that a Christ resurrected from the dead (the instances that refer to Christs are almost certainly not referring to the biblical Jesus either).

"There is no need for priests for confessions, even according to Scripture."
"I confess to you, Almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters"

When you're truly sorry, you apologize because you want to, not because you have to. The priest is there to give both witness for God and for man.[/QUOTE]

The bible actually says (not any later-day Catholic additions):
1 Peter 2:4-10

Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,
8 and

“A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

i.e. ALL Christians are part of the priesthood, not specialist members of the clergy. Confessions are meant to be said to any Christian (and god). Also, this scripture makes it clear that Jesus is the chief Cornerstone, and that His Church (i.e. all Christians) are stones built upon that Cornerstone: i.e. Simon is not "the Rock" (or more accurately, the pebble, or stone)...and is not even "Peter", and neither is the Pope, because the Church (all Christians) are the stones.

[Jeremy8419]

That is an assumption. Not being able to reason why and how something exists does not mean it does not exist. I cannot reason particle physics, just as man once could not reason fire, gravity, or evolution, but such lack of reason doesn't define their existence nor supernatural nature. God, in whatever means or measure, exists within this world and without it, whether you're capable of reasoning such or not.

Think you're missing the obvious: They're under oath, and it's their job. Most people don't want to spend all day listening to people blubber about their own faults, and most people aren't under oath to not abuse what they hear.

Believe it or not, Christianity, as a patriarchal religion is extremely simple, and people's various views on the matter are like looking through a foot of river water at a misplaced stone. Don't confuse how compassionate people can, may, and will be for others as them "forcing" anything at all.

[Aylen]

@Aylen, that gnostic gospel stuff - its stupid tripe. Easily dismissed centuries ago. A bunch of misogynists wrote them, apparently, looking at these quotes. Look:

From "The Gospel of Thomas":

"Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too
may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female
who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

And this is just a tip of the iceberg as to what is wrong with the gnostics. The only reason they are still around is there are people in every generation that are titillated with the idea that they have access to some special "secret" knowledge.


____________________________________

If it is secret it is because it was suppressed and I think we both know that. In ancient times, and not so ancient, people had to have their secret knowledge or die for it as a heretic. If you think I read it because I was titillated then you missed my whole point of posting the link and quotes.

I am sure you understand one person's stupid tripe is another person's bible or religion? Isn't that what many atheists think of your bible? The translations vary but what does Jesus say about seeking and nothing remaining hidden? Don't you think he said that for the "common man" and not just some religious scholar? Is it possible the quote you just posted could be interpreted so many different ways (like all bible quotes) that reading any of it at face value is failing to decipher any hidden meaning? Ask Jesus to show you the meaning behind it and see what happens? If you are allowed to. Can you explain this one to me from the official bible?





The quotes I posed from the Gospel of Thomas were written in the coptic language so it is no surprise that some of the translations are as weird as some recognized official biblical quotes. But there is a promise that what is hidden will not remain, so....

Just a hypothetical here, if Jesus himself were to come to you and tell you, Eliza, that the Gospel of Thomas was the closest to truth of any gospel. Would you believe him? Would you deny it was him? Would you be doubting? I am just curious since you seem to think some people have a direct line to heaven.

Would you turn from the church if it was Jesus himself who asked you to and told you to go tell others what he told you directly?

How do you, personally, know that Thomas did not go out and tell others what Jesus said to him?

Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."


Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."


And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"


Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

It seems that if they exist it is very possible that if there is god, it wanted them to survive so that people could read them in a time where the church could not force themselves on the masses. They were found in perfect time for that since most people can read for themselves without fear now. It is not so secret now is it?

The Nag Hammadi library^[1] is a collection of Gnostic texts discovered near the Upper Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi in 1945. Twelve leather-bound papyrus codices buried in a sealed jar were found by a local farmer named Muhammed al-Samman.^[2] The writings in these codices comprised fifty-two mostly Gnostic treatises, but they also include three works belonging to the Corpus Hermeticum and a partial translation/alteration of Plato's Republic.

In his introduction to The Nag Hammadi Library in English, James Robinson suggests that these codices may have belonged to a nearby Pachomian monastery, and were buried after Saint Athanasius condemned the use of non-canonical books in his Festal Letter of 367 A.D. The discovery of these texts significantly influenced modern scholarship into earlyChristianity and Gnosticism.

The contents of the codices were written in the Coptic language. The best-known of these works is probably the Gospel of Thomas, of which the Nag Hammadi codices contain the only complete text. After the discovery, scholars recognized that fragments of these sayings attributed to Jesus appeared in manuscripts discovered at Oxyrhynchus in 1898 (P. Oxy. 1), and matching quotations were recognized in other early Christian sources. Subsequently, a 1st or 2nd century date of composition circa 80 AD or earlier has been proposed for the lost Greek originals of the Gospel of Thomas. The buried manuscripts date from the 3rd and 4th centuries.

The Nag Hammadi codices are currently housed in the Coptic Museum in Cairo, Egypt.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library

Also, keep in mind that the books that men, who by godly standards are sinful and flawed, chose what books to be included over a period of centuries. You do not consider that they could make a mistake? Or even dismiss things that did not further their political position and control of the masses?

The canon of the New Testament is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and constituting the New Testament of the Christian Bible. For most, it is an agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books that includes the Canonical Gospels, Acts, letters of the Apostles, and Revelation. The books of the canon of the New Testament were written mostly in the first century and finished by the year 150 AD.

For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692, although it was nearly universally accepted in the mid 300s.^[1] The Catholic Church made dogmatic definition upon its Biblical canon at the Council of Trent of 1546, reaffirmed the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393-419.^[2][3] For theChurch of England, it was made dogmatic on the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563; for Calvinism, on theWestminster Confession of Faith of 1647.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develo...estament_canon

By your own words on this forum, you believe Catholic bishops and scholars (and some woman who claims to be channeling Jesus) are the only one's privy to a direct line to god or Jesus (secret knowledge much?) so anything not sanctioned by the catholic church is stupid tripe? Do I have to remind you what other Christians think of the Apocrypha? They believe it was included as loophole.

Like @Subteigh pointed out, Catholics (and even the religion I was raised in) are seen as nothing better than Satanists, for their idolatry (icons, candle, and incense) and asking for saints to intercede on their behalf, even today. God was not very pleased with a golden calf. How would god feel about all the gold in these churches? I have no problem with it, ftr, but the argument that all the gold and wealth of the church is for the poor is laughable. It could feed the poor but instead much of that money comes from the poor hoping to buy some relief. It should be seen for what it is, art. Nothing more and if poor people want to give money to create art then it is their right. If they want to give money to help others then it is best to give the money directly to those in need.

Facts Why The Apocrypha Can NOT Be Scripture

Why do non-Catholic authorities reject the Apocrypha as being Canon? Four reasons are:

1. "They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms."
   "They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices which are at variance with inspired Scripture."
   "They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture."
   "They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling."(6)

Some other reasons why we must reject the Apocrypha as being part of canon are:

1. It is not included in the Hebrew canon of Scripture.
   The Apocryphal writers sometimes disclaim divine inspiration. For example, in 2 Maccabees 15:38,39 CT, we read,
   "So these things being done with relation to Nicanor and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me."
   "In all of the New Testament there is not even one single reference or quotation, made by Christ or any of the Apostles, that would confirm all or any part of the Apocrypha as being divinely inspired."(7)

Jude Quoted The NON-Inspired Apocrypha

Jude actually quotes the apocrypha (Jude 9 cf. The Assumption of Moses), but that doesn't mean the apocrypha was inspired anymore than when Paul quoted various pagan sources: Aratus (Acts 17:28), Menander (1 Cor. 15:33), and Epimenides (Tit. 1:12). That doesn't take away from the inspiration of the book of Jude or Paul's writings to quote such a source.

Did You Know the 1611 KJV Included The Apocrypha?

2 Maccabees and Purgatory

In 2 Machabees (another spelling) 12:43-46, we have the reference cited by the Catholic Church to support Purgatory. If one would read verses 40 through 46, he would learn that God killed these people because of idolatry. According to Catholicism, if you die in the state of mortal sin, which idolatry is, you'll go straight to Hell when you die! Therefore, according to Catholic doctrine, Judas Machabeus was WRONG in suggesting that the people should "pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins" (verse 46)!For a person to believe in the doctrine of Purgatory, he/she would have to be totally misinformed about the Biblical doctrines of the Atonement, Redemption and even Salvation. Purgatory infers works for salvation, a soul-damning and devilish teaching. John Calvin'shero -- Augustine of Hippo said, "there are some who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness."(8) This statement infers works for salvation which is refuted by Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; Rom. 4:4-6 and 2 Tim. 1:9. Consequently, one can therefore conclude that Augustine was NOT a Christian, but instead a minister and servant of Satan, 2 Cor. 11:13-15!

In summary, the Apocryphal books, which include 2 Maccabees, are NOT from God, NOT inspired and MUST NOT be placed on the same level of authority as Holy Writ. For the Catholic Church to do just the opposite shows:

1. They are misleading people by filling them with FALSE hopes about a non-existent place (Purgatory). This in turn causes people not to make a real heart-felt commitment to Jesus Christ, a thing Catholics NEVER hear about anyway in their doctrines. The Gospel, according to the Catholic Church, is: baptism, communion, penance, good works, church membership and Mary. This, of course, places all who teach such (priests, nuns, monks, etc.) under the divine curse of Gal. 1:8,9. (By the Catholic Church's false directions to heaven, we therefore can identify it as NON-Christian and just as deadly as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism and any other cult.)
   Those in authoritative positions in the Catholic Church, past or present, who hold to the Apocryphal books as being inspired are not led by the Holy Spirit, for He will guide into all truth (Jn. 16:13). Also, the same people can't be "of the truth" (Jn. 18:37), because they don't hear Jesus' voice.
   To believe the Apocryphal books are inspired means either ignorance or dishonesty to hermeneutical principles and processes.
   For a Catholic Council like Trent or Vatican I to declare inspiration for these books shows that God is not controlling these councils.

The Book of Enoch is FATALLY FLAWED!

The Apocrypha Has a DANGEROUS FALSE Forgiveness Message

Here is another quote from the Apocrapha:

Prayer is good with fasting and alms: more than to lay up treasures of gold: for alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting (Tobias 12:8,9).

That passage proves the Apocrypha has a dangerous FALSE plan of salvation, which can never produce true salvation and deliverance from sin addictions. Its false gospel centers around alms for: deliverance from death, purging away sins and enabling one to find mercy and everlasting life, which is never the message of the Lord Jesus or his apostles!Considering all the adverse effects of tradition, of which the Apocrypha is a result, one can see why Jesus refuted tradition and error as He did, Mt. 15:1-14; Mk. 7:6-13; Lk. 11:37-52; Mt. 16:6,12! Christians who desire to please God first and not man should unhesitatingly give logical reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired as they "speak the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15) and contend for God's truth. Go by theBible ALONE and reject the Apocrypha as being inspired for your own good!
The Apocrypha Includes Susanna and Bel and The Dragon

In the Catholic Bible, the book of Daniel has 14 chapters instead of 12 as non-Catholic Bibles do. Chapter 13 is Susanna and chapter 14 is Bel and the Dragon.

They are both considered apocryphal. Bel and the Dragon is so ludicrous it is hard to believe anyone could consider it inspired by God. If you are having a bad day and need a good laugh, read Bel and the Dragon! Regarding contradictions,please know that in Bel and the Dragon there is a story of how Daniel got into the lion's den (Daniel 14:27-42), which is highly contradictory to the true Scriptural account of Daniel 6! Again, the KJV Bible of 1611 also had the Apocrypha in it! Remember, the apocrypha is NOT inspired by God and should NOT be trusted as God's truth.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/apocryph.htm

As you can see, it is pretty easy to pick apart a religion or a quote when you don't understand it and by dismissing the gnostics you are doing the same thing that the above quote does to your religion and what I just did by bringing up the wealth of the church coming from the poor.



It's even easier to dismiss it outright, than pick it apart (as you just did with the quote you posted) but you didn't even give me a reason for it being "stupid tripe" other than it was discredited by people you hold above others as having some secret wisdom to translate and choose for us. Yeah, if Jesus was a historical person (I believe he was) then I am sure he would have something different to say about it than "stupid tripe".

[marooned]

when i read the gospel of thomas (i read it over and over and let the meaning soak in) i thought a lot of those quotes were because the men didn't like how mary m. was included in the group. they had sexist objections from the culture of the place/time. jesus, however, didn't have such objections. his responses are usually along the lines of showing that what we are transcends biological sex differences. keep in mind, there wasn't a concept of "sexism" in this culture. there wasn't a women's rights movement. instead there were very solid gender norms and women had way fewer rights than men. that jesus allowed a woman to participate as an equal was something that would seem "not right" to most men of the time/culture (i'm guessing).

i'm not absolutely certain i am right. and i haven't read the gospel of thomas in years, so i can't speak to every individual line.

eta: having looked at aylen's post reminded me that when we covered this gospel in my christian philosophy class the suggestion of translation issues came up there too.

eta2: one possible way even to look at the quote is that jesus is applying humor. if the problem with mary is that she is female, fine, i will make her male. problem solved. can we move on?

end points from jesus: 1) he's not going to ask mary to leave the group (he is never reported to say she should leave or that she is inferior). 2) mary has just as much access to the kingdom of heaven as any man.

eta3: i'm very sleep deprived and disorganized atm (excuses!). i kind of imagine jesus as often playing with the role he has in the eyes of his disciples. they see him as really divine and hang on his every word. half the time he tries to encourage them to find their own divinity, but he knows it is not something they will grasp immediately (perhaps they will not grasp it at all). the other half of the time he uses how they see him to his advantage even though he believes they (and all people) can attain what he has: if they see him as a divine teacher and walking manifestation of god, he can use this when they are being particularly petty, to quickly influence them in a different direction. (these are the sorts of tricks parents employ to children, and to jesus i think his disciples are like children often in a spiritual sense.)

eta4: i generally see what jesus says and does as artful and deliberate. there is always a purpose. it has always been "calculated" to try to reach exactly what inside a person he is trying to reach. he has a wide range of possible behavior he can employ. he confuses others sometimes on purpose. he frightens others sometimes on purpose. everything he does is because he is trying to get someone to See.

[Not A Communist Shill]

That is an assumption. Not being able to reason why and how something exists does not mean it does not exist. I cannot reason particle physics, just as man once could not reason fire, gravity, or evolution, but such lack of reason doesn't define their existence nor supernatural nature. God, in whatever means or measure, exists within this world and without it, whether you're capable of reasoning such or not.

There has been an extended conversation concerning the "supernatural" in the "Do you believe in God?" thread.

"Not being able to reason why and how something exists does not mean it does not exist." - this does not make sense. If something exists, it is a natural phenomenon. If we know something exists, it cannot be supernatural.

Think you're missing the obvious: They're under oath, and it's their job. Most people don't want to spend all day listening to people blubber about their own faults, and most people aren't under oath to not abuse what they hear.

The bible says you should not take oaths. In any case, all Christians are servants of their god, so are no less bond than professional priests.

Believe it or not, Christianity, as a patriarchal religion is extremely simple, and people's various views on the matter are like looking through a foot of river water at a misplaced stone. Don't confuse how compassionate people can, may, and will be for others as them "forcing" anything at all.

Even without the contradictions, Christianity is not especially simple. It has a whole host of baggage. In the Catholic Church especially: I believe for example, their latest edition of their Catechism is longer than the whole bible, already a long book. If Christianity was only about compassion, it would not need all the pointless theology, and it would not threaten hell on those simply for not following pointless tenets such as worshiping god.

[Jeremy8419]

This is due to you not seeing the practical reasons for such things. Although they seem potentially silly on the surface, the ten commandments and adherence to or lack thereof has a very real world effect on the individual and society in general. Is the Father the same as the Son? What of the Holy Spirit? What of Mary? What of all these endless contradictions which could not possibly exist? I'm afraid I must point out the reality of the matter that being unable to accept these contradictions as reality is evidence of the differences in our personal influences. There is no contradiction for myself, because there is no contradiction in my personal influences, nor many others. These things factually exist, and the lack thereof factually exists as well. Am I God? Nope. Can I change the lives that God has given to others? Nope. However, I know the Father, and the Son, and I am the Father, and the Son, and free from contradiction, I can tell you, the Father never leaves or abandons the Son, he simply changes form.

"Honor thy mother and father."

[Skepsis]

I don't want to get in the middle of the deeply committed beliefs of others, but may I suggest at least few nights a year, sitting around a fire with friends, drinking wine, looking up at the stars. Dance, sing, laugh, whatever, just enjoy the life one has. Life is just too fucking short.

[Jeremy8419]

I don't want to get in the middle of the deeply committed beliefs of others, but may I suggest at least few nights a year, sitting around a fire with friends, drinking wine, looking up at the stars. Dance, sing, laugh, whatever, just enjoy the life one has. Life is just too fucking short.

http://diycozyhome.com/log-candle/

[Aylen]

For years I was told that Jesus was a heretic in his own time so if you want to be like Jesus, be a heretic too? Could we all hold reincarnational aspects of Jesus? Are we the son of man, collectively? I am sure people who believe they are the reincarnation of Jesus are seen as lunatics but if viewed symbolically it is no crazier than believing you are literally eating the body and drinking the blood of christ.

In Judaism, "son of man" denotes mankind generally in contrast to deity or godhead, with special reference to their weakness and frailty (Job 25:6;Psalms 8:4; Psalms 144:3; Psalms 146:3; Isaiah 51:12, etc.) or the term "ben adam" is but a formal substitute for the personal pronoun.^[16][17]

Jesus is by definition a heretic. And this is not to do Jesus an injustice, for in the light of his non-conformist teachings and behaviour, he was without doubt a heretical figure in Jewish eyes. And if he returned today, he would, likewise, be a heretic in the eyes of the Christian Church.

…and I too am a heretic by classical definition. But I also claim to be a ‘natural’ heretic, and mean by this that I’ve always had a tendency to question things, whatever their origin or supposed status. I do not consider this tendency pathological. And neither do I consider my taking a stand against Christianity’s claims for Jesus a spiritual impertinence. In fact, I feel the opposite. I feel, deeply, that Jesus the Nazarene has been done a great disservice by many of those claiming to hold him in high esteem. All I see is a sad-eyed prisoner of the Christian imagination locked inside a paradigm he did not, and would not now, condone. (Lockhart, p.9)

More...

That Jesus gave the Pharisees and Sadducees a hard time cannot be denied, and that he probably gave the Essenes just as hard a time is only just beginning to be realized. This was a man of passionate belief, a man of action, a man who believed himself fully qualified and positioned to challenge the religious leaders of his time…. This was no half-baked revolutionary with a rabble behind him: it was an individual of clear mind and strong heart who wished to inaugurate a revolution on both the religious and social levels of his culture and time. This is what is so attractive about him – one sense the passion in him boiling away as he tries to make his often doltish disciples understand his insights and long-term plans. He is special, and he knows he is special. He can see only too clearly that his religious peers have become bogged down in narrow-minded, nit-picking practices, and as a Galilean with a deep sense of space and freedom he wants to reveal what he has personally found out about God – that He does not live in a box labeled Religion. (Lockhart, p.169)

http://thespiritoftruth.blogspot.com...s-heretic.html

I quote this blog since I asked Eliza a hypothetical question as to whether or not she would believe someone who came to her today and said they were Jesus and how she would respond if they asked something of her. This person presents himself as the reincarnation. He also calls himself a Christian. He has derived meaning for himself. Whether or not I believe him is irrelevant, but I don't for my own reasons. I believe he is symbolically onto something though.

I believe if there was a "second coming" no one would take it very seriously. Just as this guy isn't taken seriously.

Any "miracles" would be dismissed as delusions, illusions and and outright trickery. This is why I am so adamant that people think for themselves and what they conclude, even if it is not in alignment with any religion, is just as important as someone who believes their religion is the only way to salvation.

Make of it what you will...



My truth is someone else's illusion and vice versa.

"Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All." -- Jesus

Are you troubled yet? I have always been and it keeps me revising my beliefs.

[Aylen]

I don't want to get in the middle of the deeply committed beliefs of others, but may I suggest at least few nights a year, sitting around a fire with friends, drinking wine, looking up at the stars. Dance, sing, laugh, whatever, just enjoy the life one has. Life is just too fucking short.

I don't want to change anyone's beliefs. Beliefs are beautiful things, or ugly depending on perspective. I write for those of like-mind, those who never stop questioning. My beliefs took form by taking in information from various sources that I deem credible. Others have their own credible sources for their own reasons. I don't think about these ideas daily. If the opportunity comes up for me to share some of this useless knowledge then I take it and it seems less useless. I think Eliza and others are fine with whatever they believe . Nothing I say to her is meant to sway her from her path. I couldn't if I wanted to and I don't want to.

[Eliza Thomason]

Showing compassion for the innocent is easy

I disagree.

, but showing compassion for murderers and leading them on a better path (or at least helping them die in peace) is true compassion. It's what Jesus would do.

Its not an either/or thing.

I don't mean to be offensive, but to judge a woman who does true work, puts herself through emotional and spiritual agony to be an ear for people society has shunned because they went down a wrong path, watches people she cares about be executed to make sure they have at least one loving face to look at before they die because she disagrees with you about doctrine is pretty rich. Who are you to claim authority over the Catholic faith and judge this woman?

I hope her works are as wonderful as you say. Her words are not; they offend me. Referring to what you wrote here, she touts a perverted view of hell, implying that's what we believe! She has a mind and she has access to truth of the teaching of the Church, which see made vows to, so I see no excuse. And I have seen the like. They had their heyday in the 60s & 70s, but their orders are dying out. They have no life in them. The young are not attracted. Its truth that attracts. So the other orders of sisters who are faithful to the teaching of the Church - those orders are growing. That's the reality.

[Not A Communist Shill]

This is due to you not seeing the practical reasons for such things. Although they seem potentially silly on the surface, the ten commandments and adherence to or lack thereof has a very real world effect on the individual and society in general. Is the Father the same as the Son? What of the Holy Spirit? What of Mary? What of all these endless contradictions which could not possibly exist? I'm afraid I must point out the reality of the matter that being unable to accept these contradictions as reality is evidence of the differences in our personal influences. There is no contradiction for myself, because there is no contradiction in my personal influences, nor many others. These things factually exist, and the lack thereof factually exists as well. Am I God? Nope. Can I change the lives that God has given to others? Nope. However, I know the Father, and the Son, and I am the Father, and the Son, and free from contradiction, I can tell you, the Father never leaves or abandons the Son, he simply changes form.

"Honor thy mother and father."

I've examined the bible in great depth, and they are not only "silly on the surface": it is a text of great evil, right to the core. I don't think questions about god are of any practical concern whatsoever, beyond the fact they waste a lot of time that could be spent making the world a better place.

[Jeremy8419]

I've examined the bible in great depth, and they are not only "silly on the surface": it is a text of great evil, right to the core. I don't think questions about god are of any practical concern whatsoever, beyond the fact they waste a lot of time that could be spent making the world a better place.

If by "great evil," you mean a story about a dad and a son, and how the son ultimately becomes the father, then sure.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If by "great evil," you mean a story about a dad and a son, and how the son ultimately becomes the father, then sure.

No, I was talking more about the genocides and the eternal torture.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Showing compassion for the innocent is easy

I disagree.

, but showing compassion for murderers and leading them on a better path (or at least helping them die in peace) is true compassion. It's what Jesus would do.

Its not an either/or thing.

I don't mean to be offensive, but to judge a woman who does true work, puts herself through emotional and spiritual agony to be an ear for people society has shunned because they went down a wrong path, watches people she cares about be executed to make sure they have at least one loving face to look at before they die because she disagrees with you about doctrine is pretty rich. Who are you to claim authority over the Catholic faith and judge this woman?


Everything about your post is arrogant, vain, and written from the comfort of your comfortable chair. How about you go out and do the hard work before you judge people?

I hope her works are as wonderful as you say. Her words are not; they offend me. Referring to what you wrote here, she touts a perverted view of hell, implying that's what we believe! She has a mind and she has access to truth of the teaching of the Church, which see made vows to, so I see no excuse. And I have seen the like. They had their heyday in the 60s & 70s, but their orders are dying out. They have no life in them. The young are not attracted. Its truth that attracts. So the other orders of sisters who are faithful to the teaching of the Church - those orders are growing. That's the reality.

I think it a natural human instinct to show compassion, not just for the "innocent", so I really do not know why you think showing compassion for the innocent isn't easy. But I can see now it must blow your mind when you encounter people such as @Penny and myself who have infinitely more "compassion" for people like Нitler than Jesus ever could. Do you still express confidence in your Delta credentials, that have you often reduced to very simplistic terms, and in a very "Us vs. Them" way?

[Kim]

I disagree.

Its not an either/or thing.



I hope her works are as wonderful as you say. Her words are not; they offend me. Referring to what you wrote here, she touts a perverted view of hell, implying that's what we believe! She has a mind and she has access to truth of the teaching of the Church, which see made vows to, so I see no excuse. And I have seen the like. They had their heyday in the 60s & 70s, but their orders are dying out. They have no life in them. The young are not attracted. Its truth that attracts. So the other orders of sisters who are faithful to the teaching of the Church - those orders are growing. That's the reality.

Many people show compassion for the innocent, few show compassion for the non-innocent. Sister Prejean is against killing and that includes abortion (as she has made clear). How can you put a disagreement about eternal damnation above this woman's work? You have no compassion for murderers? Read her book or listen to one of her talks. They are on Youtube. If you are not inspired by her work, you have no business calling yourself compassionate.

She is doing the complicated, messy, agonizing work very few people do. She works with criminals and the poor. She also reaches out to the families of the victims. If young people are not attracted to that kind of ministry, there is a problem with young people, not with her (and I saw a lot of young people flock to her talk and be inspired by her).

What do you do besides claiming authority from the comfort of your living room? You are in no place to judge her. And why would anyone who claims to be a compassionate Christian (like you) feel compelled to judge, ridicule, and look down on someone because they believe god would not send people into eternal suffering (like her)? Because she believes he is TRULY merciful?

How sad that you are so in love with the idea of eternal damnation that you ridicule a good person's life work over a disagreement. Isn't vanity a sin, too?

[Kim]

I think it a natural human instinct to show compassion, not just for the "innocent", so I really do not know why you think showing compassion for the innocent isn't easy. But I can see now it must blow your mind when you encounter people such as @Penny and myself who have infinitely more "compassion" for people like Нitler than Jesus ever could. Do you still express confidence in your Delta credentials, that have you often reduced to very simplistic terms, and in a very "Us vs. Them" way?

I actually believe Jesus was the most compassionate of them all. I think his legacy has been perverted to fit the scheme of scaring people into obedience throughout the history of Christian doctrine. I was taught by my pastor growing up that it makes no sense to claim on the one hand that Jesus was the epitome of compassion and on the other that he would sanction eternal damnation and I agree with that.

I am not religious (or at least not a practicing anything), but I do find the story of Jesus inspirational and don't like it when people use his name to lift themselves up as Christian while at the same time thinking it's ok to send people to hell. How does that compute? I am absolutely convinced Jesus would not send anyone to hell. That is my personal truth.

[Jeremy8419]

No, I was talking more about the genocides and the eternal torture.

Doesn't seem a whole hell of a lot different than a lot of people's opinions of their dads on here, so again we're back to the same thing.

Even has parts about "virgin mother"s magically getting pregnant, step dads, and the son basically dating someone with his mom's name who got labeled a whore for a long time.

It's a story of contradictions for people who are full of contradictions themselves. It's there for people when their lives are dark and they need to understand what they never had the chance to witness themselves. Now, I may not have had a lot happen to me that others have, so I don't have the need for such engrained into my psyche, but as an adult capable of giving back to society which is often less well-off, I can understand the value and necessity for others, and with due diligence, bring them to something which will ultimately lead to their own healing and the subsequent healing of others. Not like my relationship with socionics is really any different; I could just point out the obvious problems to others as to why things are going the way they are going, but a lot of times people either do not want nor can handle such, so superstitions, ala Socionics, are utilized to piece together the broken psyche of others. Not really any different than religion, politics, what-have-you. The only difference is being compassionate enough to actually talk with others in whatever language they're most comfortable with, and slowly assisting in bringing them back to what they always deserved to be.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Before this next part I want to explain that much has been written about these coming days. Here are more details. You may have heard of the "Rapture" - well, there will be no rapture. We will all be here, believers or not. There will be many difficult times on earth and they start when the moon turns red (more on that below) and when the moon turns red it will commence rapid, constant and huge upheavals in the world all the culminating in the great 3 days of darkness when hell will literally be unleashed on earth. Evil will kill itself off basically, and the earth will be cleaned and new and different. More is written about new age of obedience in Volume 8.

[...]

When the
moon turns to red, My child, the
calamities will begin and there will be no
break in the events[/U]. They will come one
after the other. People who are prepared
will feel the quietness in their souls.
People who have rejected Me will either
choose Me then, or take another step
closer to hell. This time is near.”

Do you believe in the Blood Moon prophecy yourself? How many years will it take you to move the Apocalypse to after the Blood Moons of 2032-2033, or 2043-2044, or 2050-2051 etc.? Do you expect this will happen in your lifetime?

[Aylen]

I actually believe Jesus was the most compassionate of them all. I think his legacy has been perverted to fit the scheme of scaring people into obedience throughout the history of Christian doctrine. I was taught by my pastor growing up that it makes no sense to claim on the one hand that Jesus was the epitome of compassion and on the other that he would sanction eternal damnation and I agree with that.

I am not religious (or at least not a practicing anything), but I do find the story of Jesus inspirational and don't like it when people use his name to lift themselves up as Christian while at the same time thinking it's ok to send people to hell. How does that compute? I am absolutely convinced Jesus would not send anyone to hell. That is my personal truth.

This.



par·a·ble
ˈperəb(ə)l/
noun

• a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.
  

  synonyms:

  allegory, moral story/tale, fable, exemplum"the parable of the prodigal son"

  
  
  
  
  

[Aylen]

I think it a natural human instinct to show compassion, not just for the "innocent", so I really do not know why you think showing compassion for the innocent isn't easy. But I can see now it must blow your mind when you encounter people such as @Penny and myself who have infinitely more "compassion" for people like Нitler than Jesus ever could. Do you still express confidence in your Delta credentials, that have you often reduced to very simplistic terms, and in a very "Us vs. Them" way?

Quotes by Neale Donald Walsch in his "conversations with God":


"Walsch: But those who have taught me all about the rights and wrongs, the dos and don'ts, the shoulds and shouldn'ts, told me all those rules were laid down by You—by God.


God: Then those who taught you were wrong. I have never set down a "right" or "wrong," a "do" or a "don't." To do so would be to strip you completely of your greatest gift—the opportunity to do as you please, and experience the results of that.... To say something—a thought, a word, an action—is "wrong" would be as much as to tell you not to do it.... To prohibit you would be to restrict you. To restrict you would be to deny the reality of Who You Really Are.


God: Evil is that which you call evil. Yet even that I love, for it is only through that which you call evil that you can know good; only through that which you call the work of the devil that you can know and do the work of God. I do not love hot more than I do cold, high more than low, left more than right. It is all relative. It is all part of what is.


I do not love "good" more than I love "bad." ****** went to heaven. When you understand this, you will understand God."

[Not A Communist Shill]

I actually believe Jesus was the most compassionate of them all. I think his legacy has been perverted to fit the scheme of scaring people into obedience throughout the history of Christian doctrine. I was taught by my pastor growing up that it makes no sense to claim on the one hand that Jesus was the epitome of compassion and on the other that he would sanction eternal damnation and I agree with that.

I am not religious (or at least not a practicing anything), but I do find the story of Jesus inspirational and don't like it when people use his name to lift themselves up as Christian while at the same time thinking it's ok to send people to hell. How does that compute? I am absolutely convinced Jesus would not send anyone to hell. That is my personal truth.

that's a possibility, but so little can be known for certain about Jesus...he could easily have been manufactured, like the angels of Islam and Mormonism, or Xenu in Scientology. I can only judge Jesus on what was recorded in the bible: he was "compassionate" in this life and did not care for material things. He was very much an "afterlife" person: and it was here that he was hateful. I do not consider it a discrepancy, it is just that the biblical Jesus was fundamentally not a compassionate person "in my book".

I not consider Jesus's ideology (if it was his) as especially enlightened or even original at the time: Greek playwrights centuries before for example showed great compassion in their works (even towards enemies), without the need for damning anybody.

[Eliza Thomason]

For years I was told that Jesus was a heretic in his own time so if you want to be like Jesus, be a heretic too?

Probably not the first approach I would take for being like Jesus.

Could we all hold reincarnational aspects of Jesus?

There is no such thing as reincarnation. "It is given unto men once to die, and then the Judgment."

Are we the son of man, collectively? I am sure people who believe they are the reincarnation of Jesus are seen as lunatics but if viewed symbolically it is no crazier than believing you are literally eating the Body and drinking the Blood of Christ.

Jesus said the former was not true, and the latter is. So - big difference.

I quote this blog since I asked Eliza a hypothetical question as to whether or not she would believe someone who came to her today and said they were Jesus and how she would respond if they asked something of her. This person presents himself as the reincarnation. He also calls himself a Christian. He has derived meaning for himself. Whether or not I believe him is irrelevant, but I don't for my own reasons. I believe he is symbolically onto something though.

Jesus, the Good Shepherd tells us there will be many false prophets, but "My sheep know My voice."

I believe if there was a "second coming" no one would take it very seriously....

As to the 2nd coming I am currently leaning toward Jesus's words in the Direction Four Our Times books, because I hear My Shepherd in those words. He is the "Returning King" and He explains that He is returning now - in peoples hearts. He does not talk about when He returns physically, only that its coming, beginning now, but He speaks primarily of what we need to know now, that He is returning now, beginning in people's hearts. Its not the hoopla everyone is looking for, but then, Jesus' first coming was not the hoopla people were looking for then. Yes, Jesus will return and all will know and see him, but he is beginning that return now, in the hearts of those who want Him. It is what we pray in the Lord's prayer: "Thy Kingdom Come." Yes, Come, Lord Jesus, in my heart, and make your Kingdom there.

Any "miracles" would be dismissed as delusions, illusions and and outright trickery. This is why I am so adamant that people think for themselves and what they conclude, even if it is not in alignment with any religion, is just as important as someone who believes their religion is the only way to salvation.

Sounds good, but there is a lot of deception out there. And "We fight not against flesh and blood but powers and principalities". I want to be sure I am with All-Truth.

...My truth is someone else's illusion and vice versa.

That's familiar! Yes, Pontius Pilate said something just like that, before he condemned Jesus... And I wouldn't look to him for wisdom - he had a real bad end, as Caesar told it.

Jesus' alleged "troubled" quote is from the Apocrapha, so I would pay it no mind, if I were you. I want to get at the truth. That should be the aim. I really do not want to be one of those, "Ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of truth".