What religion are you?

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The problem is I've never met a Christian who isn't also a hypocrite in some area.

One of the main points of Christianity is that we need God's help in order to try to live a good life because we do not have the moral strength to do it ourselves. So this is to be expected.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

If one wishes to know more of this... god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites

mmm, bigotry

square_igloo wrote: »

I have no idea! I'm still looking tbh.
I was baptised and raised as a Catholic, but I can't justifiably call myself one because I disagree with the Church's stance on so many issues (abortion, homosexuality, sex before marriage etc.) I'm not an atheist because I do believe that a higher power exists.

There is not only one "Church". I think that dismissing Christianity on the basis of politics is rather dodgy.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Agnostic, The existence or not of god(s) is unimportant, rather how you seek to lead your life is.

So how good is good enough?

Rev Hellfire

Húrin wrote: »

So how good is good enough?

It's not a race or a line you must cross to qualify, hence I don't think your question has much merit.

PDN

Christian (Pentecostal / Evangelical)

wolfsbane

Gareth37 wrote: »

I have a major problem with this. The RCC fundamentally believe in Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit. Tell me how the RCC have errored?

A fundamental error they have is their doctrine of salvation. They say it is of grace, but go on to say that it is received by faith and works.

True Christian doctrine says it is all of grace, received by faith alone. Our good works necessarily follow true faith, but are not the basis of our justification. We receive our righteousness from God, the righteousness of Christ - not that God and us combine to make up the necessary righteousness.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

A fundamental error they have is their doctrine of salvation. They say it is of grace, but go on to say that it is received by faith and works.

True Christian doctrine says it is all of grace, received by faith alone. Our good works necessarily follow true faith, but are not the basis of our justification. We receive our righteousness from God, the righteousness of Christ - not that God and us combine to make up the necessary righteousness.

Your understanding is wrong and incomplete.

According to Catholic teaching, there are two types of grace - sanctifying and actual grace.

Sanctifying grace is what saves us and actual grace is conferred by God as an undeserved gift which effectively brings us closer to God and helps us do His will.

See http://www.catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Can I ask you a straight question and get a straight answer please?

How do you know that you interpretation of Scripture is as Jesus intended it?

I don't know that of all my interpretation, of every doctrine. I think you would concede that is true for every Catholic too, including the Pope. He only claims to be sure about certain things.

I claim every true Christian is sure about the fundamental truths - the deity of Christ, for example - because they are led by the Holy Spirit into saving truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I see it confirmed in the Bible - in a way any honest reader would interpret it, even if an unbeliever.
Do you really think it's just down to honesty?

No, the Spirit gives the prime witness - honest interpretation just backs it up. There is no justification for anyone to deny that the Bible teaches the deity of Christ - the Spirit confirms it in the Christian's heart and even the unbeliever can see it plain in the Bible, even if he doesn't accept it.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
A fundamental error they have is their doctrine of salvation. They say it is of grace, but go on to say that it is received by faith and works.

True Christian doctrine says it is all of grace, received by faith alone. Our good works necessarily follow true faith, but are not the basis of our justification. We receive our righteousness from God, the righteousness of Christ - not that God and us combine to make up the necessary righteousness.
Your understanding is wrong and incomplete.

According to Catholic teaching, there are two types of grace - sanctifying and actual grace.

Sanctifying grace is what saves us and actual grace is conferred by God as an undeserved gift which effectively brings us closer to God and helps us do His will.

See http://www.catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp

That article is dealing with a different aspect of the 'grace' debate. I was talking about how one becomes righteous before God - by His grace alone or by His grace and our works. We both agree that saving faith is His gift - grace. God gives repentance and faith to us.

But the RCC goes on to say that our subsequent good works add to that grace to give us justification. Faith + Works.

Here's a Protestant site on the matter:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r005a.html

And a Catholic site:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FAWORKS.htm

Goduznt Xzst

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes. Here's some churches that have fundamentally erred:
The Roman Catholic Church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons)
The Jehovah Witnesses
The Unitarian Churches

Remember my caveat: true Christians can be found in even apostate churches.

So what is going to happen to all the individuals in these Churches that follow these apostate teachings? How would you define a "true Christian" in these "apostate" Churches? Would they be individuals that disagree with their Church but do not have the courage to leave?

Seaneh

I don't have a religion, I have a faith and a personal relationship with my God and my saviour Jesus Christ.
I attend a Church called Discovery in Galway, really youth based church with two awesome Pastors and a great group of youth and young adults.
the church is part of a network of churchs in Ireland called Assemblies of God.

Eh yeah.

I .

wolfsbane

Goduznt Xzst said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes. Here's some churches that have fundamentally erred:
The Roman Catholic Church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons)
The Jehovah Witnesses
The Unitarian Churches

Remember my caveat: true Christians can be found in even apostate churches.
So what is going to happen to all the individuals in these Churches that follow these apostate teachings?

If they remain in their unbelief, they will be eternally lost.

How would you define a "true Christian" in these "apostate" Churches? Would they be individuals that disagree with their Church but do not have the courage to leave?

Yes, though it may not be a matter of courage (though I'm sure it often is), but a desire to keep an open line to their family and friends or some such worthy motive.

ArthurGuinness

I dont believe in god...........but im still a catholic

Goduznt Xzst

wolfsbane wrote: »

If they remain in their unbelief, they will be eternally lost.

So devout believers in the Roman Catholic Church are going to hell?

BrianCalgary

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So devout believers in the Roman Catholic Church are going to hell?

Where did you come to that conclusion?



Especially when wolfsbane said: If they remain in their unbelief, they will be eternally lost.

And: Remember my caveat: true Christians can be found in even apostate churches.

PDN

ArthurGuinness wrote: »

I dont believe in god...........but im still a catholic

But your screen name is that of a Protestant brewer.

Goduznt Xzst

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Where did you come to that conclusion?

Quite easily, here is wolfsbane's opinion:

Roman Catholic Church = Apostate Church due to its teachings
Devout Roman Catholics = Apostates

What happens to Apostates BrianCalgary?

The caveat, as wolfsbane explained, applies to true christians who want to leave the RCC but can't for various reasons, these individuals are not devout Roman Catholics.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Quite easily, here is wolfsbane's opinion:

Roman Catholic Church = Apostate Church due to its teachings
Devout Roman Catholics = Apostates

What happens to Apostates BrianCalgary?

The caveat, as wolfsbane explained, applies to true christians who want to leave the RCC but can't for various reasons, these individuals are not devout Roman Catholics.

No, it does not follow that those who are devout members of an apostate church are themselves apostates, no more than that all patriotic citizens of a corrupt police State are themselves corrupt. I share Wolfsbane's belief that the Roman Catholic Church has, by adopting non-Chistian teachings, departed from the historic Christian faith. However, I also believe that many devout Catholics have sincerely accepted the saving message of Christ inasmuch as it has been revealed to them. Sadly they have swallowed a lot of other stuff as well. I would believe them to be deceived, but Christians nevertheless.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

No, it does not follow that those who are devout members of an apostate church are themselves apostates, no more than that all patriotic citizens of a corrupt police State are themselves corrupt. I share Wolfsbane's belief that the Roman Catholic Church has, by adopting non-Chistian teachings, departed from the historic Christian faith. However, I also believe that many devout Catholics have sincerely accepted the saving message of Christ inasmuch as it has been revealed to them. Sadly they have swallowed a lot of other stuff as well. I would believe them to be deceived, but Christians nevertheless.

So the Pope is an apostate then

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So the Pope is an apostate then

I don't know if apostate is a correct term for the Pope since I don't know that he ever embraced biblical Christianity. The word 'apostate' means one who once held to truth but has now abandoned it. That would be true of the Roman Catholic Church, but probably not of the Pope.

The Pope, as leader of an apostate church, is educated enough, and enough of a biblical scholar, to realise the falsity of many of the claims of his denomination.

However, I think that the Pope cares even less about my opinion of him than I do about his opinion of me as a heretic.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

I don't know if apostate is a correct term for the Pope since I don't know that he ever embraced biblical Christianity. The word 'apostate' means one who once held to truth but has now abandoned it. That would be true of the Roman Catholic Church, but probably not of the Pope.

The Pope, as leader of an apostate church, is educated enough, and enough of a biblical scholar, to realise the falsity of many of the claims of his denomination.

However, I think that the Pope cares even less about my opinion of him than I do about his opinion of me as a heretic.

You should be a politician PDN. I asked a simple question to which you have given a complicated answer.

What term would you use for the Pope then? Would you not assume that the leader of a "corrupt police State" would in turn be corrupt? So if the RCC is spreading apostate teachings what does that make the leader of that Religion?

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You should be a politician PDN. I asked a simple question to which you have given a complicated answer.

No, I gave an accurate and thoughtful answer.

You are coming across as someone who is frustrated because we don't give you the answers you need to pigeonhole Christians to fit a pre-conceived stereotype.

For some reason you want me to falsely label the pope as an apostate. What on earth is your problem?

What term would you use for the Pope then? Would you not assume that the leader of a "corrupt police State" would in turn be corrupt? So if the RCC is spreading apostate teachings what does that make the leader of that Religion?

And must the leader of a 1000-year old church also therefore be 1000 years old?

Just because an adjective can be ascribed to an organisation it does not follow that the same adjective must also apply to the leader, or members, of that organisation.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

And must the leader of a 1000-year old church also therefore be 1000 years old?

PDN, you disappoint me :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

Just because an adjective can be ascribed to an organisation it does not follow that the same adjective must also apply to the leader, or members, of that organisation.

I am really trying to get my mind around this. So you are saying it is possible to have a corrupt police state, where the civilians aren't corrupt, the police aren't corrupt, and the leaders and government aren't corrupt. Really PDN? Is this the line you are going to stick to?

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

PDN, you disappoint me :rolleyes:



I am really trying to get my mind around this. So you are saying it is possible to have a corrupt police state, where the civilians aren't corrupt, the police aren't corrupt, and the leaders and government aren't corrupt. Really PDN? Is this the line you are going to stick to?

Do I have this right PDN is picking on the Pope

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I am really trying to get my mind around this. So you are saying it is possible to have a corrupt police state, where the civilians aren't corrupt, the police aren't corrupt, and the leaders and government aren't corrupt. Really PDN? Is this the line you are going to stick to?

Are you taking the piss?

I'm making no such statement about a police state at all. In a corrupt police State then the leaders would be corrupt also. However, to try to extend that to the term 'apostate' is poor logic.

a⋅pos⋅tate
–noun
1. a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc.

When used as a noun this does not apply to the Pope. He has, to my knowledge, always been a Catholic and has not forsaken his religion.

–adjective
2. of or characterized by apostasy.

When used as an adjective this does, IMHO, apply to the Roman Catholic Church as it has forsaken the pure doctrine of early Christianity.

I hate sloppy and inaccurate use of the English language. That is why I will not extend the term 'apostate' to the leader of the Church. Not being complicated, just using the English language.

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

When used as an adjective this does, IMHO, apply to the Roman Catholic Church as it has forsaken the pure doctrine of early Christianity.

That would be an ecunimical matter IMHO

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

When used as a noun this does not apply to the Pope. He has, to my knowledge, always been a Catholic and has not forsaken his religion.

PDN wrote: »

When used as an adjective this does, IMHO, apply to the Roman Catholic Church as it has forsaken the pure doctrine of early Christianity.

You are mincing your terms. When contrasted with Catholicism, no, the Pope is not an apostate. But when you contrast him with the pure doctrine of early Christianity then what do you see him as?

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You are mincing your terms. When contrasted with Catholicism, no, the Pope is not an apostate. But when you contrast him with the pure doctrine of early Christianity then what do you see him as?

I see him as a teacher of false doctrines and the leader of an apostate church.

However, I will not allow you to put words into my mouth. That is not mincing words. Words have meanings, and I prefer to use them to denote their correct meanings.

Now discuss the issues if you want, but stop acting the goat. If you want to argue semantics then go somewhere else.

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

the Pope is not an apostate.

You tell him

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

I see him as a teacher of false doctrines and the leader of an apostate church.

You would probably cause an argument in a hairdressers.

wolfsbane

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So the Pope is an apostate then

I see where you are being confused. But PDN is correct when he points out that the accurate use of apostate applies only to those who once professed the true faith and then renounced it. The RCC does not officially hold to the true faith, so the pope might not be expected to have at any time held it.

However, the term is not always used so accurately, and can often be seen applied to members of apostate organisations.

As to the debate with Brian about 'devout Catholics', the misunderstanding comes from what might be meant by that term:
1. Devout in holding to all the teachings of Rome.
or
2. Devout in holding to the Christian faith, even though in membership in Rome.

If one devoutly believes in justification by faith plus works, then one is lost.

If one devoutly trusts in Christ alone, by faith alone, for salvation, then one is saved even if a member of the RCC.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

......the accurate use of apostate applies only to those who once professed the true faith and then renounced it. The RCC does not officially hold to the true faith, so the pope might not be expected to have at any time held it.

What is the true faith Wolfsbane? Your church presumably?

wolfsbane wrote: »

If one devoutly believes in justification by faith plus works, then one is lost.

Have you never read about the Last Judgment?

Matthew 25:32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

You've a lot to learn!

wolfsbane

kelly1

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
......the accurate use of apostate applies only to those who once professed the true faith and then renounced it. The RCC does not officially hold to the true faith, so the pope might not be expected to have at any time held it.
What is the true faith Wolfsbane? Your church presumably?

Yes, the fundamental parts that I hold - and are held by millions of other true believers both inside the RCC and outside it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If one devoutly believes in justification by faith plus works, then one is lost.
Have you never read about the Last Judgment?


Quote:
Matthew 25:32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

You've a lot to learn!

True faith always results in good works, and this passage is to show that an empty profession of faith is false. It does not teach salvation by works, nor even by faith + works. Paul, for example, makes it clear that we contribute nothing to our salvation - it is all of God's grace, received by faith without the works of the law:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

He goes on in this passage to show us the place of good works:
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

See also:
Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 4: 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

And of course the words of our Lord Himself:
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

RiverWilde

I'm not a theologian ... I'm a believer in Our Lord Jesus. I was initially raised in the RC church and found so many things wrong with the structure of the church and it's teachings that I couldn't in good conscience remain a Roman Catholic.

I am now a proud member of the Church of Ireland.

Riv

bou

Buddhist. Background as a catholic. More appreciation of teachings of Jesus since developing interest in Buddhism.

BrianCalgary

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Quite easily, here is wolfsbane's opinion:

Roman Catholic Church = Apostate Church due to its teachings
Devout Roman Catholics = Apostates

What happens to Apostates BrianCalgary?

The caveat, as wolfsbane explained, applies to true christians who want to leave the RCC but can't for various reasons, these individuals are not devout Roman Catholics.

Logic is way off. The organisation may be apostate but those within the organisation need not be.

And I dont think that wolfsbane would say that a devout RC is necessarily an apostate.

Again you show your misinformation.

But to answer youyr question: What happens to Apostates BrianCalgary?

They are then unbelievers and face the judgement of God. As the Bible says that since they have a desire to live without God, their wish and hearts desire will be duly granted.

rojerdandry

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -Albert Einstein.

CDfm

rojerdandry wrote: »

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -Albert Einstein.

I heard a quote recently that went something like its better to judge a man by his everyday life than his great deeds. I dont know who said it or their beliefs but it is a very good philosophy.

SeekUp

Christian ~~> Protestant ~~> Methodist

PDN

CDfm wrote: »

I heard a quote recently that went something like its better to judge a man by his everyday life than his great deeds. I dont know who said it or their beliefs but it is a very good philosophy.

I believe Hitler was very nice to children. And he did make the trains run on time.

Greaney

Deceptivly Clever/ simple thread this.

Former lapsed Catholic, now attending the Reformed Presbyterian Church..

I've go to say, I've had a good browse around the Christian forum this evening, and as a former Catholic (in truth, it was just a social matter because most of us just turned up to mass till we didn't), I find it frustrating in Ireland (I'm from Galway) that my faith get's lumped in with the Church I left... not logical.

I'll get over it. Still sometimes if I'm drawn into certian conversations on faith and spirituality, I feel like it's "pearls before swine". Not that their swine... no no, just that my faith is precious to me...

Mmmm, I didn't mean to go on there....

Húrin

bou wrote: »

Buddhist. Background as a catholic. More appreciation of teachings of Jesus since developing interest in Buddhism.

Are the teachings of Jesus not incredibly deluded from a Buddhist point of view?

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

I believe Hitler was very nice to children. And he did make the trains run on time.

But what about the Good Samaritan parable.The Samaritans were a different race to the Jews and had different beliefs.

So where is the moral?

Is there a belief requirement?

PDN

CDfm wrote: »

But what about the Good Samaritan parable.The Samaritans were a different race to the Jews and had different beliefs.

So where is the moral?

Is there a belief requirement?

It depends on what you're talking about. The Parable of the Good Samaritan was given to answer a specific question - Who is my neighbour? Its message is that we are to show love to all - not just those who share our ethnicity or religious beliefs.

If we're discussing salvation then there is both a belief requirement (faith in Christ) and an action requirement (the good works & changed life that follow true faith).

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

It depends on what you're talking about. The Parable of the Good Samaritan was given to answer a specific question - Who is my neighbour? Its message is that we are to show love to all - not just those who share our ethnicity or religious beliefs.

If we're discussing salvation then there is both a belief requirement (faith in Christ) and an action requirement (the good works & changed life that follow true faith).

I thought we were discussing tolerence.

PDN

CDfm wrote: »

I thought we were discussing tolerence.

So you were asking if there is a belief requirement in order to be tolerant? Sorry, I'm not really following you at all.

Húrin

rojerdandry wrote: »

"Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." -Albert Einstein.

I think we can all agree with this one. There is no place in Christianity for mere lip service to the moral law that God has created in the form of our consciences. Acting ethically, out of fear of punishment, when you actually wish to do the wrong thing, does not impress God at all.

From the Sermon on the mount:

Matthew 5:21-22 wrote:

21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

and

Matthew 5:27-28 wrote:

27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Hence, to internalise the moral law, so that our actions be in accord with out conscience because we wish them to, is what is needed to make it worthwhile.

And this is the point that Einstein and other atheists fail to address, but that Jesus does address: we are weak. We regret and repent of yesterday's sins but in all likelihood we will commit them tomorrow too.

We need Christ's help to be the people we were created to be. We cannot wash the outside of the cup and expect the inside to be clean.

xseanx

I practice johnoharism.

It's a truely fullfilling religion.

Fanny Cradock

That's just swell, Sean. Please read the charter.

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

So you were asking if there is a belief requirement in order to be tolerant? Sorry, I'm not really following you at all.

So a non believer who behaves as the samaritan did is not worthy of salvation. The catholic view is he is.

xseanx

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's just swell, Sean. Please read the charter.

I'm sensing sarcasm,
is their a problem with my religion?

''what religion are you'' that is what this thread is about, right??

peace

Fanny Cradock

The Christianity forum is not the place to be discussing 'johnoharism'. I suggest either A&A or AH for that.