Did the Pope just say unless your Catholic....

[ItalianScallion]

This part always baffles me about "once saved always saved". If someone thinks they are saved, acts saved, etc how can they ever know that, in reality, they were not truly saved?
And if God did not save a person by His Grace, because in His Divine Foreknowledge He knew they wouldn't last, how did that soul ever have a chance in the first place? Apart from God's grace there is no chance, so if God has withheld based on what He knows is coming down the road, what hope does a person have?
This is a huge problem for me with OSAS. The Catholic position makes much more sense, as well as displaying God's perfect mercy and justice. That is, that God's grace is available to all who desire it, but that we may certainly reject Him at any point (NOT to be confused with God taking it away). But then we may repent and He will be merciful.

Hi Libby, good question. Salvation to some is a journey (Hebrews 3 v 6, 14, 15) & (1 John 2 v19-25). Many of us knew that we were truly saved when we asked Christ to save us. Others, were unsure. Your point about God knowing that "they wouldn't last", shows that God doesn't save someone just to lose them later. He allows some people to come under the influence of The Holy Spirit, (as Judas did) and yet walk away and do the devil's work. This clearly proves what I said earlier that Judas wasn't truly saved. Jesus called Peter & Judas devils, but Peter repented and followed after Jesus. Judas didn't. He killed himself. You need to realize that a person has no hope if God knows that THEY will reject Jesus and never get saved. It isn't God rejecting them, it's them rejecting God. God will not force anyone to believe against their will. (2 Peter 3 v 9) says that God wants everyone to be saved and NONE to perish. It won't be that way but He gives everyone the chance. In (Hebrews 6 v 4-6 and Hebrews 10 v 26-39) we see that anyone can call themselves a Christian but a true Christian is regenerated and endures to the end WITH THE TRUE GOD. There are many people out there today who THINK they are saved but will be severely disappointed one day. You ask, "if someone thinks and acts saved, how can they ever know that they AREN'T truly saved?" God has allowed The Holy Spirit, The Bible, Christians & His creation (Romans 1 v 18) to tell them what the truth is, but most reject it. If you are open to the truth of the Bible, the Holy Spirit will show you it. If not, you will hear it and reject it, but now you are accountable for it. Christian's names were written in God's book of life BEFORE the earth was even created, so He foreknew those who would be saved and those who wouldn't. If God knows that a person will never accept Christ while they are on earth, what does it matter for them? This is why people here like myself, 2A, PsyOps, and a few others say what we say here on the forum. It is Bible words, not ours, and it makes folks accountable for the truth so they can't say that they didn't know it on judgment day.

 

[Ha_Satan]

Okay then, forgive me. I will come right out and ask… Does God (Yahweh) exist?

Of course.

If that was the case this “PsySheep” would have heeded to what you are propagating; blindly following whatever I hear.

No. What makes you a sheep is blindly following and being mentally oblivious to anything else. So, on the contrary, it re-inforces my point.

I understand that the Bible has been compiled by men that made decisions about what will be included and not. And I am trying to say that this doesn’t detract from the validity of that existing Word one bit. Adding the “missing” parts doesn’t change the historical FACT of billions of believers… All “those poor sheep that'll believe anything that sounds plausible.”

Quite simply, people are stupid, especially in groups. How many people believe something to be true has no bearing on it's truthfullness. At one point, EVERYONE KNEW the world was flat. Within the last century EVERYONE KNEW smoking was a good thing. In fact, hospitals gave out cigarrettes to help calm your nerves. Don't even get me started on eggs and cholesterol.

As for the additional words, or possibly false words added, yes, they change the validity. Changing, deleting or adding one word in a sentence can give it an entirely different meaning; as can also be done with chapters in a book. Thinking otherwise, makes me giggle.

Have you considered that these “men around the table” could quite possibly be men influenced by God’s will? Or do you just chose to sheepishly follow the typical anti-Christian drumbeat that they are just fallible men, pompously determining for the billions of sheep what they will and will not know? In reality we are all sheep in one fashion or another aren’t we? Aren’t you sheepishly following what you believe?

What makes you a sheep has nothing to do with what you believe- stereotypical or otherwise- but why you believe it and your capacity for acknowledging, understanding, and at least considering incorporating additional information into your existing belief structure. This capacity of course, you've already proven to be completely lacking.

You’d do better to appose my point rather than just state that something is beyond my comprehension. It’s a copout.

No, mr. sheep, it's rather obviously the truth.

Sure what does? Are you saying I do put my faith in that “bunch of men around a table”? Now who’s putting words in who’s mouth? Have you no clue what faith is? Can you even define it? Can you explain how my faith exists within my soul? Do you even know what a soul is? Are all these things only known through a book?

Explain this: How can you possibly have faith in a product without having faith in the machine that made it? Simple empirical logic.

It would have made more sense to compare this to the Koran or the Torah than an ancient poem. There's a reason people aren't worshipping Homer. Have you figure that out yet?

No it wouldn't. :sigh: Time to break out the food processor....

Following the Illiad doesn't mean that you'd worship Homer; it means you'd believe in the Greek mythalogical gods contained therein.

Seeing as how the Tanakh contains the Torah and it's English translation is part of the Bible, using it would make sense how? Otherwise, it doesn't matter what book I used to make my point as long as it was old. The point was quite simple: Being around forever doesn't make it true. Try this: Paganism pre-dates Christianity and is still practiced by many. Does mean it's more valid or true than Christianity?

 

[PsyOps]

Of course.

For more clarification, to what capacity?

No. What makes you a sheep is blindly following and being mentally oblivious to anything else. So, on the contrary, it re-inforces my point.

Define "anything else". I ask this in the context of what you believe, not in the context of “there couldn’t possibly be anything else to believe”.

Quite simply, people are stupid, especially in groups. How many people believe something to be true has no bearing on it's truthfullness. At one point, EVERYONE KNEW the world was flat. Within the last century EVERYONE KNEW smoking was a good thing. In fact, hospitals gave out cigarrettes to help calm your nerves. Don't even get me started on eggs and cholesterol.

Pretty arrogant to blanketly assume people are stupid only because they adhere to a thinking you don’t. The tables could easily be turned you know? I think it’s safe and smart to put things in a context of a whole rather than compartmentalize our beliefs to a single book. This would equate to placing your whole understanding of God’s plan for salvation in a single passage of the bible. In the same way I don’t think we should place our whole understanding of God in one book or even one “science”. All these other bits of information have come to light for a reason. There may have been an attempt by writers of the bible to quell certain books and passages, but for whatever reason, they cannot be silenced and are being exposed.

But let’s just suppose for one moment that the bible (as we know it) had never been compiled. Would God still exist? Would he be any less that God without the bible? Is He any more our God with the bible? So despite who compiled the bible (“stupid” men around a table), God is.

As for the additional words, or possibly false words added, yes, they change the validity. Changing, deleting or adding one word in a sentence can give it an entirely different meaning; as can also be done with chapters in a book. Thinking otherwise, makes me giggle.

Even if this did occur, it still doesn’t change who God is. This is where my reliance on the bible ends and my faith begins. If you are going to believe in God you eventually have to come to a conclusion that regardless of what you read, your faith will ultimately expose the truth.

What makes you a sheep has nothing to do with what you believe- stereotypical or otherwise- but why you believe it and your capacity for acknowledging, understanding, and at least considering incorporating additional information into your existing belief structure. This capacity of course, you've already proven to be completely lacking.

This is a very vague statement. Exactly what additional information am I supposed to be incorporating into my existing belief structure? I feel I have a good grasp for the sciences of nature, evolution and our universe. I don’t dismiss any of it as factual on their own merits; except for the agenda-driven purpose of dismissing God’s existence.

No, mr. sheep, it's rather obviously the truth.

It seems your only purpose at this point is to demean me rather than challenge my points. A poor argument indeed.

Explain this: How can you possibly have faith in a product without having faith in the machine that made it? Simple empirical logic.

So you answer my questions with a question. God is not a product. If you are going to believe in God (which you have admitted you do; to what capacity yet to be defined) then you have to believe in His eternalness. How do you apply any sort of logic to this? I will admit there is no rational explanation for God. That’s why there is faith. You want to call that “sheeply” following something then I guess I am a sheep.

No it wouldn't. :sigh: Time to break out the food processor....

Following the Illiad doesn't mean that you'd worship Homer; it means you'd believe in the Greek mythalogical gods contained therein.

Seeing as how the Tanakh contains the Torah and it's English translation is part of the Bible, using it would make sense how? Otherwise, it doesn't matter what book I used to make my point as long as it was old. The point was quite simple: Being around forever doesn't make it true. Try this: Paganism pre-dates Christianity and is still practiced by many. Does mean it's more valid or true than Christianity?

You can spin this however you want to suit your purpose. The Illiad is a poem, not a guide for understanding the Greek Gods in the capacity of worship.

Being around forever doesn’t make what true? Being around forever? The basis for everything I write is rooted in faith; not how old something is or if it outdates Christianity or if there were passages left out of the Bible. If you can’t come to this conclusion then you obviously wont understand.

 

[Ha_Satan]

For more clarification, to what capacity?

It's irrelevant. I'm not here to preach.

Define "anything else". I ask this in the context of what you believe, not in the context of “there couldn’t possibly be anything else to believe”.

Context is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with "what" and everything to do with "why." I made that crystal clear.

Pretty arrogant to blanketly assume people are stupid only because they adhere to a thinking you don’t. The tables could easily be turned you know? I think it’s safe and smart to put things in a context of a whole rather than compartmentalize our beliefs to a single book. This would equate to placing your whole understanding of God’s plan for salvation in a single passage of the bible. In the same way I don’t think we should place our whole understanding of God in one book or even one “science”. All these other bits of information have come to light for a reason. There may have been an attempt by writers of the bible to quell certain books and passages, but for whatever reason, they cannot be silenced and are being exposed.

The point wasn't about faith in God, but in the validity of a book. Stop re-directing, it's annoying.

You said "Adding the “missing” parts doesn’t change the historical FACT of billions of believers…" as if billions of people believing added to it's credibility. I said "people are stupid" and gave examples showing that what people believe has nothing to do with whether or not it's credible.

But to my other point, how many of those writings have you actually read? Better yet, how many have you read with the mindset of "what's there?," instead of "what re-inforces my existing belief structure?"

But let’s just suppose for one moment that the bible (as we know it) had never been compiled. Would God still exist? Would he be any less that God without the bible? Is He any more our God with the bible? So despite who compiled the bible (“stupid” men around a table), God is.

I never questioned God's existance. Stop re-directing.

Even if this did occur, it still doesn’t change who God is. This is where my reliance on the bible ends and my faith begins. If you are going to believe in God you eventually have to come to a conclusion that regardless of what you read, your faith will ultimately expose the truth.

Of course it doesn't change who God is. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is the validity of the writings that define God and His will. Without them, what would you know of God? So if they're false, than how can you truly know God?

This is a very vague statement. Exactly what additional information am I supposed to be incorporating into my existing belief structure? I feel I have a good grasp for the sciences of nature, evolution and our universe. I don’t dismiss any of it as factual on their own merits; except for the agenda-driven purpose of dismissing God’s existence.

Actually, it was a very specific statement. To answer your question: The information that's written in the books you put so much faith in. Try looking at what's written, rather than how it interacts with what you already believe.

It seems your only purpose at this point is to demean me rather than challenge my points. A poor argument indeed.

This coming from the guy with constant re-direction, mis-interprations and putting words in the mouths of others when he finds himself backed into a corner?

So you answer my questions with a question. God is not a product. If you are going to believe in God (which you have admitted you do; to what capacity yet to be defined) then you have to believe in His eternalness. How do you apply any sort of logic to this? I will admit there is no rational explanation for God. That’s why there is faith. You want to call that “sheeply” following something then I guess I am a sheep.

Welcome to rhetoric.

And again with the re-directing Look at the freakin' post! God is not "the product." God was not in question; the validity of the Bible was.

You can spin this however you want to suit your purpose. The Illiad is a poem, not a guide for understanding the Greek Gods in the capacity of worship.

Being around forever doesn’t make what true? Being around forever? The basis for everything I write is rooted in faith; not how old something is or if it outdates Christianity or if there were passages left out of the Bible. If you can’t come to this conclusion then you obviously wont understand.

And yet again with the re-directing.

I could go on and on about how poetic the Bible (especially the Tanakh) but screw it, I'll break out the baby-food machine and cut to the chase...

You said this:

This book you so discredit has stood the test of time unlike any other book. So I suggest you consider that historical fact before simply disregard thousands of years of history.

Saying that standing the test of time proves the validity. I gave you a book that has also stood the test of time; yet happened to be full of BS (in the eyes of those of us that believe in monotheistic religions) when it comes to the Gods that were worshipped; proving that age has nothing to do with it. And don't even try to twist it into who believes what today- crazy people are out there, just like stupid people.

I continue to counter your points and you continue with re-direction, mis-interprations and putting words in the mouths of others. So, tell me again: Who's argument is poor?

 

[PsyOps]

It's irrelevant. I'm not here to preach.

It’s irrelevant because you say so? This is not in the context of you preaching what you believe; but rather giving a clearer understanding of where you are coming from.

Context is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with "what" and everything to do with "why." I made that crystal clear.

The term “anything else” refers to “what”, not “why”. It was your context not mine. So, no you didn’t make it clear.

The point wasn't about faith in God, but in the validity of a book. Stop re-directing, it's annoying.

I’m simply trying to convey to you that a person’s faith doesn’t come from a book. If that annoys you then I can’t help that.

You said "Adding the “missing” parts doesn’t change the historical FACT of billions of believers…" as if billions of people believing added to it's credibility. I said "people are stupid" and gave examples showing that what people believe has nothing to do with whether or not it's credible.

This whole point runs in circles because you can just simply say people are stupid. That simplistic point of view doesn’t prove any more for me than your claim about a book.

But to my other point, how many of those writings have you actually read? Better yet, how many have you read with the mindset of "what's there?," instead of "what re-inforces my existing belief structure?"

What writings are you referring to? Homer’s Iliad? I have read. The Koran? Only partially, but not cover to cover. But you are asking me to change my way of thinking when reading something. My faith it too deeply rooted within me to just dismiss “what reinforces my existing belief structure”. This is something that I have come to realize your justnot able to understand at this point.

I never questioned God's existance. Stop re-directing.

Actually, you constantly question God’s existence. You’ve even gone to the extent of claiming people are “stupid” for doing so. You’re trying to talk your way out of things that leads you right back to this very point. Then when I try to get the actual point out of you, you tell me it’s irrelevant.

Of course it doesn't change who God is. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is the validity of the writings that define God and His will. Without them, what would you know of God? So if they're false, than how can you truly know God?

I’ll give you this one BUT, what if they are true? That’s where faith comes into play. Something you can’t get from a book.

Actually, it was a very specific statement. To answer your question: The information that's written in the books you put so much faith in. Try looking at what's written, rather than how it interacts with what you already believe.

How in world do you separate the two? Perhaps I can explain it like this. You know if you jump off the Bay Bridge it will kill you. But I will write a book that will tell you that it wont? Can you read this book with the ability of completely dismissing what you already know in your heart is true? Will you somehow be convinced that, after all, I wont be killed and go jump off the bridge?

I will tell you this… there is much that confuses me in the Bible. But none of that distract me from what I believe is the underlying truth of who God is in my life and who my savior is. As I said before, if that makes me a sheep and stupid then I guess I am just a stupid sheep. None of this diminishes who God is.

This coming from the guy with constant re-direction, mis-interprations and putting words in the mouths of others when he finds himself backed into a corner?

Well gee… I guess we’re both guilty.

And again with the re-directing Look at the freakin' post! God is not "the product." God was not in question; the validity of the Bible was.

Ummm… Satan, pssstttt… the Bible IS ABOUT GOD. I believe in God. I believe the Bible is the word of God. You apparent don’t. I don't expect you to. I at least get that. You don’t seem to.

I could go on and on about how poetic the Bible (especially the Tanakh) but screw it, I'll break out the baby-food machine and cut to the chase...

Saying that standing the test of time proves the validity. I gave you a book that has also stood the test of time; yet happened to be full of BS (in the eyes of those of us that believe in monotheistic religions) when it comes to the Gods that were worshipped; proving that age has nothing to do with it. And don't even try to twist it into who believes what today- crazy people are out there, just like stupid people.

The book you gave me (the Iliad) is NOT a book of worship. It is a poem. Do you know the difference between an apple and orange? Last I checked there are billions of Christians. I’m not seeing very many that believe in the Greek Gods (I’m sure there are some). I'm not seeing very many Churches of the Greek Goddess Athena around. THAT is the context I refer to as “the test of time”. The fact that your thinking sits in the minority only gets magnified by your constant desire to call those you disagree with as “stupid” and “sheep” and “requiring baby food”. It’s a sad statement to, what otherwise would be, a good argument.

I continue to counter your points and you continue with re-direction, mis-interprations and putting words in the mouths of others. So, tell me again: Who's argument is poor?

Yours.