You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian)

LOL, no offense, but I meant that your paragraph was contradictory. It will be too much now to re-hash it, but I will attempt to answer your post. I don't understand applying 'selection' to relgion. Many opposing religions have been 'selected'. I would like to explore this, but perhaps in another time and place.The truth is, that many of these seeemingly contradictory statements are the only things that don't contradict the Bible, and this will obviously make some people 'select' that belief. What appears contradictory is actually the only thing non-contradictory. For, you witness the Jehova's Witnesses...ha ha...they don't believe in the Trinity, and have to change the Bible to meet thier needs.The whole thing you wrote about the Trinity would be fine and nice if it were not for the Bible. The Bible almost certainly shows a Trinity. Since most people can see that the Bible itself is contradictory, the only non-contradiction is the Trinity. It is not a membership ploy, but pretty much what evolution is. Most people can see that it happened, and that brings in more members than any gray area theory. No, no! Read again; How many such people do you think exist? Not many, IMO. Certainly not Gandhi or Anne Frank. They knew about Jesus, but did not know Jesus. There is a difference. They just can't be said to have knowingly and deliberately rejected truth. They followed it as far as they could.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

You will find many passages which seem like ciphers and sound exclusive. Primarily they deal with those who DO believe in the church and through their own fault do not seek full union with it. There are theological or philosophical guesses as to things which are better not classified, but to be summed up in; only God truly knows the heart of a man. But, I do believe that the church fathers were right in studying these ideas so as to preach against carelessness.Example; Is Baptism by water necessary? If so WHEN does it become necessary? At what stage in the conversion process? There are many answers, but they deal ONLY with those who want to be baptized...for them, wanting baptism and being too lazy to obtain it, is sinful.But to answer your question more directly, I have pasted part of John Paul's encyclical 'Lumen Gentium' or Light of Nations. I have bolded the important part. Oddly enough, they say that to me too. ABE; The main idea is that 'willful and deliberate rejection of God' does not pertain to any books, or doctrines, or Jesus, etc. It is a purposeful desire to do 'evil' however you define it, and the rejection of God is the ignoring of the conscience which He gave you.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I don't know what my conscience says about god, or if it has any say in the matter...but I do think of it as a living thing, in the sense that it grows like a muscle and shrinks when not used. As I said above, I think a conscience can grow and change. A conscience can not be 'wrong' IMO. How could Paul say a conscience can accuse you, if the conscience doesn't even know what it is talking about? I have had many homosexual friends over the years in which I could not find a trace of duplicity or ill-intent...but suffice it to say, for me to wantonly engage in anything which does not feel natural to me, just for 'kicks' maybe, would at this point in my life be wrong.So, just because a person does not 'feel' like what they are doing is wrong, does not mean it couldn't be at least 'wrong' according to society...and if it hurts people there must exist laws to prevent someone from doing it. When someone enters a plea of not guilty because of insanity, this means that they had no control over their actions, or no knowledge of commiting fault. Yet, in cases where the person is dangerous, the law must confine them in some way. Everything else is pretty personal. Consider that I feel that I must attend church each week. You can not call me immoral, but if I miss church I very well could be according to my conscience. Conversely, I can not call you immoral for missing church, being homosexual, or anything else, no matter how much I would like for everyone to follow my code, or how much I 'believe' life should be that way. When a non-christian gets on me, calling me immoral because I smoke or drink, or even when a christian does it, I feel probably prickly like you do. I feel like it is none of their business, and they can't judge me based on what they think a christian should do.I do think there are or can be ideals for human actions, but I was taught very young that you can not 'condemn' others. We often played games, telling my mother that the 'evil' neighbor was going to hell, etc, which was probably sad but we always got in trouble for judging. Every time it was; you don't know that, only God knows. At the same time, we certainly had to answer for our own actions!The point is, whether or not something is good or bad, or whether someone thinks it is, or wants to talk you out of it, has no bearing on your salvation. Conversely, quantifying, making excuses, taking the lazy way out and trying to rationalize you decision, can weaken your moral 'immune system' as it were. I miss church frequently, because of kids, husband, or timing, but the more I do, the easier it is to make excuses the next time. Very often, people feel that they have not been going for so long that it no longer matters, and their conscience doesn't even blink an eye. I have sisters like this, and I have only escaped because I have spent more time studying my faith, and I actually enjoy church.I don't want to be too long, but I thought about something. Let's say my sisters no longer 'feel' bad about missing church? Does that mean they are 'safe'? I am not sure, not at all. I think the 'sin' comes in when they first neglected, made excuses, and denied what they felt to be right. That is what is meant be 'abandoning or rejecting truth' and I don't think the end justifies the means. Still, I can not condemn them, because their husbands may not be acquiescent, or possibly, they never DID believe.Too long, same story; men can and should caution, only God can judge.

Lordy, the last post was so long I over-looked this one.There is no seperation needed. 'Sin' is going against your conscience, which is the 'knowedge of good and evil' that is God-given (I am talking religiously, not factually, but I think you know that). Going aginst your conscience is 'evil' and sinful, because it is believed that your conscience is your only tool that helps you to discover God's plan for your life.Where I think some issues come up, is when religions tell people what is 'sin' and they try to oblige even against their conscience. I was always taught; do not do anything that someone tells you to do if it doesn't sound right. Going back to the dry bones of the slavery analogy, even when society told people slavery was good, some consciences could not accept it. For them, it was not right...and that turned out to be a good thing. But this is why I say that while society determines its own morality, that does not mean there is anything 'moral' about it.Some religions have taken it upon themselves to provide bare minimums in morality, and call the opposite 'sins'. They have presumed that most people's consciences will agree, much as the state presumes that most citizens will recognize the validity of its laws. They work on the basis that, even if you don't understand the law completely, following it has been proven to be 'good'. They do require a blind faith, but only for the blind. Many times those who can see, will know that a law is good. Even if you don't, you will be judged by the law, because it WAS good. Sometimes, tho, laws are not good, and we DO NOT have to follow laws which we feel are un-just, but it is important to do this in an orderly fashion...campaigns, etc. Jesus did not follow laws, Luther did not follow laws, Galileo dod not follow laws, but it takes a long time before a good idea is recognized, and is never a sure thing.

Works for me, but even if not, you are not obliged to agree! I disagree with this...only because you said 'noone'. It is not the works which save, but the motive, but in the RCC, doing good according to your conscience (motive) is a source of actual grace, and can save.

Yes, I understand. My idea was not to mislead people who don't have that one atrocious incident to their record. Doing good works still has merit, and at the very least, it requires some sort of faith in and following of conscience.Seems the discussion has come full circle, from doing evil in the name of God, to doing good without it.

I don't think you need to take this concept so literally, Equinox.It is similar to the idea of the Jewish people being God's Chosen people. They were human, subject to evolving life-styles, persecutions, wars, etc. There is no claim to any super-human perfection or divine hand governing every minute detail and every action of a Jewish person.But, God would guide the entire society toward what He had planned, and use them to preserve what had been revealed.When the church claims divine guidance, it is outlandish to think that every action of individual christians or of christian leaders is so perfect just because they are in the OP church, or the Catholic church, or wherever. The idea is simply that God continued His process of revelation in the church that was most 'true' perhaps to what He intended. Not every Biblical book must be perfectly set in its authorship, nor every book that is not in the Bible be discounted. There will be evil actions and good actions as at any other time, but over-all, the message is what is being preserved, expanded, clarified, and 'perfected' in a core body of doctrines which will outlast the various conflicts.

Doing good in the world is the most 'orthodox' thing there is in Christianity. That should never be preceded by anything else. But the good has to be ulitmately based on something, because we all think we are doing good. Hitler did? But King and Ghandi did what we consider 'good' because of some moral code which we have come to recognize.You mention saints. There is no reason to say that those outside of the faith are not residing in heaven. The RCC only canonizes Catholics. Let's say we are not qualified to canonize anyone else, because we can't judge them by our yard-stick. If the church checks out a member for 'orthodoxy' in the canonization period, they are primarily checking for hypocricy. Are they what they claim to be? But obviously orthodox adherence to a doctrine never got anyone canonized. It's still all about the good works. And needless to say, a person doesn't have to be perfect. Augustine wasn't perfect, regardless of his stance on heretics. But the efforts and the example are important. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

The revelations of God are recorded in the Bible. They don't end there. But if God has a continuing work in humanity, it is safe to say that all errors aside...and there are tons of them in and out of the Bible...whatever is necessary to preservation is provided for.It is a tough question, truly. If we don't have Biblical inerrancy, how can we know that God wants? But it comes to be a matter of faith. If one good person believes the Bible to be important, God will show him what is needed, and so on.It might seem that we have poor preservation, but we don't. In the OT, so much of the reading was dependant on tradition. What we continue to extrapolate from the Bible is dependent as well on tradition. For all the meany sects, there are major similarities. If someone did not know the traditional interpretations, what are the chances that they would get something from the Bible that nearly resembles what we have in Judaeism or Christianity? We would see a collection of disjointed books each with different stories, not a religion.So, the Bible is preserved as best as possible. But beyond this there is tradition. This is why the RCC puts such a big emphasis on tradition. They believe that God continues His revelations through people, that what the body of the faithful agreed to is a sign sometimes even bigger in portent than the Bible. This is the problem, yes. It is also the reason why the church saw unity as a primary goal, and why the popes campaign tirelessly for christian unity. But God can't exactly take away free-will, can He? He can't force all christians into agreement. There is no hope for it except to believe that God is still spreading His message, and to remember that it is a non-violent message. True, and logically, they can't all be correct. Therefore, one must be, or none. It is a belief that one message is correct, nothing more. Although this leads to contention, there is nothing to be done, because we can't really accept all the different views as being one truth. The violent methods of spreading an idea are not utilized anymore as far as open season for burning and torturing, or enslaving opposers. It is a shame that these things happened, but getting back to revelations, the whole process evolves to a better understanding. Men would say 'God want this' and 'God wants that' and feel justified in doing part of what the gosples say, by preaching, while forgetting all about the loving part. But not everyone forgot. There were many saints living during the periods of hate, who were living lives of love. They did the revealing and preserving.

Preservation, inerrancy, and infallibilty are beliefs. Just beliefs. They are, like any other belief, not testable of empirically verifiable in any sense.There is the belief that the scriptures were given as perfect models and accounts.There is the belief that the integral is preserved.We can't prove that, and we can't disprove it.If we accept that none of the faiths we have are correct, there is little point in having one at all. Perhaps this is what is desired of us, but there is just as little proof that anything else we have is correct, and we are not able in good conscience to walk around without imposing some rules. Can we really each be wrong in whatever way we want? Can we allow nut-case end of the world cults storing up guns and ammo? Can we allow polygamy amoung families and under-age girls? Slavery? We can allow one God, two Gods, etc. Nowadays, we do. But we still can't claim that all of these things are true and equal. I mean, seriously, we can drop the doctrine of Hell all we want, but what the hell will we do if there is one? You make it sound too easy. It is not like the RCC just made up some hell story to keep people in line. Jesus 'made it up'.

You are using the old Politician's Argument or whatever it is that Ravi Zacharias carries on about. If doing good is part of christainity, and Muslims do good, then Muslims are christian. What is true is that doing good is necessary to salvation. So people of all faiths who do good are 'saved'. But not christian. They still can't be canonized as christian saints. They can be revered, respected, preached, etc. The Catholic church for example promotes some of what Oscar Wilde said. We can believe he is in heaven. But we can't make him a Catholic saint. We also can't make 'perfection' a criteria for heaven. No one would be there. Augustine simply did the best he could with what was allowed in his time. There is every indication that he was trying to his utmost to be Christian even if he failed in some areas. You will not find a single saint who did not have issues. So, doing good IS necessary. But to be a Catholic saint you must be Catholic. Just because someone is 'smart' doesn't mean they will end up on the honor roll of a school they didn't go to. And again, you are confusing 'doing good' and being perfect.There are many misconceptions in what you say. They are beyond me to 'fix' at once. I would like to know who said that condoms cause AIDS, for starters. But whether you support birth control or not, 'doing good' is subjective. In this case, the RCC feels that preserving the use of sex for its 'real' purpose, rather than being promiscuous, is actually doing good. It is not about being orthodox. It is a matter of differeing views of 'good'.

I quoted from the same source as you did, and hopefully we don't have to go there again. I doubt that Pope JPII could contradict himself in one document and be unaware of his mistake, given the amount of proof reading and translating that goes on. Maybe the teachings are ambiguous, maybe you quote-mined, maybe neither of us get the real point. But I absolutely found as much evidence for my position as you did for yours. If someone gives you a nice little answer that is intended to satisfy your childhood curiousity, and yet contradicts the church teachings, maybe you should take it as a nice little answer for a child, find out what the church actually says, and not assume that the church is backing up every silly answer out there just to get more envelopes passing around. No church can promise salvation to anyone. What we need to do is find what a church says and then decide whether or not we agree with that teaching. We can hope our church promises this or that, but we can't manipulate the facts to make ourselves comfortable. (Please be advised that I don't mean 'facts' as typically thought of.) I read all materials with an open mind to what they actaully say, and I expect the unexpected. In other words, I am not going to go quote-mining to support a position. What the church says, it says. If we have found differing quotes about the same doctrine, then obviously we are lacking somewhere. It is just not like that. It is not up to us to decide what is 'good' doctrine. We will all have different views about 'good' doctrine. The RCC, and all churches, have doctrines. They are Biblical mainly. They won't change for us. If you have to pretend that the group you support is pure and good, then maybe your ideas of 'pure and good' are not the same as the groups. That is a good sign to get out. It's a thin line Equinox, and hard to explain to someone who is 'outside', but I do understand that you feel a good action becomes bad. The way the church feels about condom usage is that a bad action can't become good. It's interesting, however. Murder is acceptable if it will save a life. It is not the most desirable outcome, and thus the person who murders for any reason is deeply scrutinized. I believe it must be clear that there is no other choice. If there are other choices, such as abstinance, which are more desireable from a religious view, we are bound to preach them as seriously as we preach against murder. This is a touchy topic, and I don't know enough details, but to be general, I don't think that Hell factors in too much on deciding what is good. If something is good, it must be upheld, regardless of what a person feels may be the punishment for an individual who fails. The purpose of every bishop and every Christian and every good person, is to do good because it is right and it is the only way to live, absolutely regardless of where it gets you. Non-christians are adamant that good is good regardless of punishment or reward. The thrust of all argument had been that doing good to others has immediate and long-term benefits to society. I can't tell you that there is no one quivering in fear of hell, but for me, my actions are not governed by fear, or by reward.I notice that people say two things...we are doing good only to get to heaven, or we are doing good only to avoid hell. To be very realistic, heaven and hell are easily reachable just in this life. I don't know why anyone wants a moderate Catholic. You mean a non-believing Catholic who nonetheless supports the church? Why wouldn't we want to hear about the actions of the Vatican? And what use is such an uiniformed an unquestioning Catholic? They give money, you say? Seriously, anyone with an ounce of curiousity can subscribe to the Catholic papers or look online at this stuff, and there is not exactly any cover up going on. The church is not ashamed of its actions, and if some moderates are supporting the church without knowing what goes on, they are the only ones to blame. The info is out there.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

The ambiguity for me comes in when JP says 'they who without their own fault do not know the gospel of Christ'.
Which can be taken to mean almost anyone. Knowing the gospel, and knowing about the gospel. If you don't believe the gospel, how can it be said you know it? What part is 'not your fault'?(I will ask for your pardon in saying that you may have quote-mined. )I sometimes feel that either very many will be saved, or almost no one. A church is in a sticky spot when it has to make a declaration on salvation. It can not be so loose as to make people feel that the church doesn't even value itself, nor so tight as to deny salvation to all who are not in the church. It is illogical in fact to do so. It is illogical to suppose that God has no care about anyone who has never heard of Christ. It is also illogical to suppose that God has no care for those who have heard of Jesus and have not 'heard' Jesus. Any of the statements by popes are going to be guesses and somewhat ambiguous, because in all honesty a pope can't judge or categorize all people. It is a lost cause trying to pre-determine the salvation of others. Therefore I feel that the RCC makes declarations unto its own followers, and everyone else is up to God. I don't mean to nit-pick, but the church doesn't claim to save anyone. It is Jesus Who claims to save. You aren't saved because you join a church, it is merely presumed that in joining you wish to follow God and repent of your sins.You see, you had to include 'sincerely repent of your sins before death' and that proves you wrong. Anyone who sincerely repents of their sins can be saved regardless of what, if any, church they join.Ultimately, if you repent, you are considered to have joined. I will be back later to assess the rest of your post.

I was going for brevity, not trickery. In fact, the part that I didn't include changes nothing of what I was saying. Again; This clearly says that people outside of the church can be saved. We may continue to question what 'without their own fault' means, and what 'knowing the gospel of Christ and His church' means. How much does one need to know, and does 'knowing' imply understanding and agreement with? Going back to at least PiusIX, is does indeed mean understanding and agreement. So, all of these harsh papal documents which speak of condemnation for those who do not enter the church or do not remain with her, are taken now to mean 'only those who know, understand, agree, with the gospels, and still do not seek full union with the church, or who leave the church for a heretical sect. What I should have said is that both of us emphasized in our own minds a part of JP's Lumen Gentium. Not really quote-mining, but not seeing the forest for trees. Ok, so we need more sources for who can be saved outside of the church, or rather more of an expose of the doctrine. But say the church's concern is not for its own growth. The church's concern is for the salvation of souls. The only real ambiguity here is the gradual relaxation of the strict sound of the earlier popes. 'No salvation outside of the church' has evolved from being a completely literal statement, to an idealistic view of the church as the means of grace for the salvation of all good people. It is Biblical to say both; one can be saved without knowing of Jesus, AND only Jesus and His church save. THe ambiguity is in the Bible, and it is not really so complicated. There are no threats. If a church believes that something is true and good, it just won't do to have them spread the idea that any old thing will go. It is like when I look at a friend who is not taking my advise, and I say 'have it your way', I imply that I think they will have better success going my way, but I can't limit them. or prove that they will have no success going their way. All I can do is defend my own position, but I don't have to proclaim that all others are just as good, even though you could get lucky and get the same results another way. I don't forget about infallibility. I know how and when to apply it, however. In this case, there is no infallibility. A pope, any pope. CAN NOT predict whatsoever the status of another person's salvation. Only God can judge. The most a pope can do is lay out an outline for what the church believes as far as salvation doctrine. It can not limit 'ignorance' to this or that technicality. God is the only person who can judge if a person is 'ignorant' of Christ, or willfully opposed. Further, Lumen Gentium does not fall into the category of an infallible Papal definition. It is only a treatise on what the church has already taught. No pope has spoken ex cathedra, aka infallibly, since 1950. In other words, nothing that Pope John Paul said was authoritative to that extent. The RCC claims to be necessary for the salvation of the entire 'saved' world. This is not a measure of arrogance or self-love. It is a belief in Jesus, and in the work He does through His church, through grace, in the lives of men.I don't know what you mean about jesus claiming to save, or any historical reconstruction which people can't even agree on, but in this discussion, there isn'y much point in bringing up whether Jesus even existed.All I can say is that 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life' is always interpreted to mean that Jesus does claim to save. This is basically what I said above about PiusIX, whom I am assuming you refer to in 1920. I just didn't ascribe the same motives. It's a mix, Catholics want a more inclusive church, a more tolerant church, but at the same time, it is not unbiblical to be inclusive. And again, we can't say for sure how far the 'caveat of ignorance card' can be played. First of all, this doesn't sound like the LDS doctrine at all, for the simple fact that the RCC won't baptize or do anything to dead bodies.Because I thought you knew what I meant, I will have to say this more carefully this time. The RCC believes in the church militant and the church triumphant. In the case that a person is repentant before death, and achieves salvation although has not the opportunity to learn about or join the church, if he gains heaven, he is part of the 'church' which is the Body of Christ and considered inseperable from the RCC. The church is Christ, and Christ the Church, so anyone 'saved' as in, in heaven, is part of the true church. This is comparable to protestant doctrine, saving that many modern trends teach that there is no true church on earth.So, repenting doesn't make you catholic, but I was talking about only the instant of death, when by repenting you desire to be part of the 'church'. You are not thereofore Protestant, or Mormom, or Methodist...but Catholic according to the idea that the RCC is Christ. Weird, perhaps, not 'official' per se, but part of the doctrine of baptism into Christ by desire.

I support the RCC teachings against birth-control usage by Catholics. I do not always financially support a parish or a special collection, unless I feel confident in the work being done, and that the parish is not in the 'progressive' category. I don't of course condone or support lying about condoms and AIDS or anything else, but I expect uniformity of doctrine. The church can't preach one thing in the US and have a different doctrine for Africa.I don't know which other topics specifically you would like to know about? The suggested tithe is 10% I believe.