Coke Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

There are aspects of Judaism I like. I respect the Moslem diligence. So, can we get to know God outside of Organized Religion?

---

Thomas Aquinas held that "human reason, without supernatural aid, can establish the existence of God and the immortality of the soul."

The CCC states in paragraph 47: The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 1: DS 3026)

Having said that, many mysteries of God have been divinely revealed to us such as the Trinity. That only comes from organized religion.

---

The question is not whether human reason can identify the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. Can human reason alone get you there? Acquinas also said that reason without theology cannot result in a proper Theology.

"it was necessary for the sake of human salvation that certain truths that surpass human reason be made known to us through divine revelation"

We need the human reason to recognize truth, but we are only saved by divine revelation.

Coke Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It certainly makes the immaculate conception and the Trinity a bit more convoluted.

---

Not to derail this thread, but the Immaculate Conception is actually Mary being conceived immaculately.

---

True.

The immaculate conception of Mary and the Virgin birth of Christ. Two different things

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

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

Coke Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It certainly makes the immaculate conception and the Trinity a bit more convoluted.

---

Not to derail this thread, but the Immaculate Conception is actually Mary being conceived immaculately.

---

This is a rabbit hole, but without a framework of human creation (conception), the immaculate nature wouldn't be understood. Otherwise a greater miracle would have been Joseph birthing Jesus.

ATL Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It certainly makes the immaculate conception and the Trinity a bit more convoluted.

---

Not to derail this thread, but the Immaculate Conception is actually Mary being conceived immaculately.

---

This is a rabbit hole, but without a framework of human creation (conception), the immaculate nature wouldn't be understood. Otherwise a greater miracle would have been Joseph birthing Jesus.

---

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand what you mean.

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.

---

Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?

---

The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?

---

Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.

---

This is t the way to do it. The answer is in coffee bars and smoke machines. The Holy Spirit loves smoke machines…. and vanilla creamer.

"If you abide (or appreciate) in my word (or a non-gender specific substitute), you are truly my (or any number of other worthy world-view) disciples, then you will know the truth ( as you interpret it), and the truth will set you free (excluding the oppression of the patriarchy)"

Amen (and a woman)

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.

---

Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?

---

The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?

---

Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.

---

You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.

---

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong?

---

Why can't they be?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.

---

Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?

---

The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?

---

Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.

---

You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.

---

Which brings us to the whole point of the conversation. There are different interpretations out there.

The passage you used is a perfect example, you went with Matthew and a shorter look. I went with Luke and a broader perspective. Luke's passage adds all directions and the last/first to the equation. The Anglican Theologian's take that that everyone can get in and it may take longer for some, a reference to Purgatory. E,W, N, and S sure seems to imply a bigger group from all areas. Using the same passage. Christ is the way is the only commonality, what that means many will argue.

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong? None of us will know who is right for a while. So, live your life and believe. Sorry, I am getting less and less sure that there is one way as I get older.

Heck, where I grew up you were Catholic or Jewish, I knew Protestants existed but didn't meet one until I was 16. I have good friends that are Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and my Mom was Eastern Rite. They are all going to hell because they don't read the Bible like you or me?

---

But in Luke's version you referenced (your "broader perspective") didn't Jesus say that some were going to be excluded, i.e. "thrown out" of the kingdom, and the door "shut" to them?

Wasn't the reason for this their unbelief?

---

RMF, is the silence to my question a concession?

Coke Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It certainly makes the immaculate conception and the Trinity a bit more convoluted.

---

Not to derail this thread, but the Immaculate Conception is actually Mary being conceived immaculately.

---

This is a rabbit hole, but without a framework of human creation (conception), the immaculate nature wouldn't be understood. Otherwise a greater miracle would have been Joseph birthing Jesus.

---

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand what you mean.

---

To simplify and not roll down the rabbit hole, the Father/Mother requirement of human creation is an inferred dynamic between God, Mary, and Jesus.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.

---

Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?

---

The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?

---

Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.

---

This is t the way to do it. The answer is in coffee bars and smoke machines. The Holy Spirit loves smoke machines…. and vanilla creamer.

---

Who knew? I guess the love of wine in the Bible should have been a give away.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.

---

Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?

---

The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?

---

Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.

---

You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.

---

Which brings us to the whole point of the conversation. There are different interpretations out there.

The passage you used is a perfect example, you went with Matthew and a shorter look. I went with Luke and a broader perspective. Luke's passage adds all directions and the last/first to the equation. The Anglican Theologian's take that that everyone can get in and it may take longer for some, a reference to Purgatory. E,W, N, and S sure seems to imply a bigger group from all areas. Using the same passage. Christ is the way is the only commonality, what that means many will argue.

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong? None of us will know who is right for a while. So, live your life and believe. Sorry, I am getting less and less sure that there is one way as I get older.

Heck, where I grew up you were Catholic or Jewish, I knew Protestants existed but didn't meet one until I was 16. I have good friends that are Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and my Mom was Eastern Rite. They are all going to hell because they don't read the Bible like you or me?

---

But in Luke's version you referenced (your "broader perspective") didn't Jesus say that some were going to be excluded, i.e. "thrown out" of the kingdom, and the door "shut" to them?

Wasn't the reason for this their unbelief?

---

RMF, is the silence to my question a concession?

---

No, work. At some points in time work does get in the way of SicEm...

I don't disagree. I am sure some won't get in based on their beliefs in life. I also believe that some will take longer than others. But, whether I am right or wrong, won't find out until I find out!

Also, we were discussing the Church of England. They seem to have a more expansive interpretation than some.

Question, do you view Jesus's message as a message of inclusion or exclusion?

Started listening through the Church Of England synod to check the quality of the "affirm same-sex romance" arguments. Very first one from this AM's stream:

"What we have here is something that doesn't really add up. It doesn't make sense. And what I'm saying is that's okay." pic.twitter.com/zj96AedZie

— Woke Preacher Clips (Crypto-Paganism Noticer) (@WokePreacherTV) February 9, 2023

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.

---

Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?

---

The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?

---

Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.

---

You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.

---

Which brings us to the whole point of the conversation. There are different interpretations out there.

The passage you used is a perfect example, you went with Matthew and a shorter look. I went with Luke and a broader perspective. Luke's passage adds all directions and the last/first to the equation. The Anglican Theologian's take that that everyone can get in and it may take longer for some, a reference to Purgatory. E,W, N, and S sure seems to imply a bigger group from all areas. Using the same passage. Christ is the way is the only commonality, what that means many will argue.

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong? None of us will know who is right for a while. So, live your life and believe. Sorry, I am getting less and less sure that there is one way as I get older.

Heck, where I grew up you were Catholic or Jewish, I knew Protestants existed but didn't meet one until I was 16. I have good friends that are Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and my Mom was Eastern Rite. They are all going to hell because they don't read the Bible like you or me?

---

But in Luke's version you referenced (your "broader perspective") didn't Jesus say that some were going to be excluded, i.e. "thrown out" of the kingdom, and the door "shut" to them?

Wasn't the reason for this their unbelief?

---

RMF, is the silence to my question a concession?

---

No, work. At some points in time work does get in the way of SicEm...

I don't disagree. I am sure some won't get in based on their beliefs in life. I also believe that some will take longer than others. But, whether I am right or wrong, won't find out until I find out!

Also, we were discussing the Church of England. They seem to have a more expansive interpretation than some.

Question, do you view Jesus's message as a message of inclusion or exclusion?

---

Isn't that made clear in scripture? It is both. Jesus' message was inclusive, to all who believe: "Whosoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.."

But it is also clear from scripture, that there are those who will be excluded, as exemplified in the Luke passage you referenced. Also the sheep and goats parable and the parable of the ten virgins: "I don't know you. Away from me!". Also, the parable of wedding feast, where one tries to sneak in and gets thrown out - just to name a few. It is exegetical dishonesty to say that Jesus didn't speak of exclusion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.

---

Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?

---

The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?

---

Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.

---

You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.

---

Which brings us to the whole point of the conversation. There are different interpretations out there.

The passage you used is a perfect example, you went with Matthew and a shorter look. I went with Luke and a broader perspective. Luke's passage adds all directions and the last/first to the equation. The Anglican Theologian's take that that everyone can get in and it may take longer for some, a reference to Purgatory. E,W, N, and S sure seems to imply a bigger group from all areas. Using the same passage. Christ is the way is the only commonality, what that means many will argue.

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong? None of us will know who is right for a while. So, live your life and believe. Sorry, I am getting less and less sure that there is one way as I get older.

Heck, where I grew up you were Catholic or Jewish, I knew Protestants existed but didn't meet one until I was 16. I have good friends that are Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and my Mom was Eastern Rite. They are all going to hell because they don't read the Bible like you or me?

---

But in Luke's version you referenced (your "broader perspective") didn't Jesus say that some were going to be excluded, i.e. "thrown out" of the kingdom, and the door "shut" to them?

Wasn't the reason for this their unbelief?

---

RMF, is the silence to my question a concession?

---

No, work. At some points in time work does get in the way of SicEm...

I don't disagree. I am sure some won't get in based on their beliefs in life. I also believe that some will take longer than others. But, whether I am right or wrong, won't find out until I find out!

Also, we were discussing the Church of England. They seem to have a more expansive interpretation than some.

Question, do you view Jesus's message as a message of inclusion or exclusion?

---

Isn't that made clear in scripture? It is both. Jesus' message was inclusive, to all who believe: "Whosoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.."

But it is also clear from scripture, that there are those who will be excluded, as exemplified in the Luke passage you referenced. Also the sheep and goats parable and the parable of the ten virgins: "I don't know you. Away from me!". Also, the parable of wedding feast, where one tries to sneak in and gets thrown out - just to name a few. It is exegetical dishonesty to say that Jesus didn't speak of exclusion.

---

I agree 100% that believe is a pre-requisite. Those who don't believe are not saved. What happens to them? I have no idea, in my mind it varies from being thrown into a pit of burning sulfur to ending up in the same place. I can make arguments for both. Reminds me of a joke about the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, who are as conservative as you get.

"Man died and ended up at Pearly Gates. St Peter showed him around Heaven. When they got to a certain corridor, St Peter said to the man to be very quite. The man asked why? St Peter said down there are the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans and they think they are the only ones here. They get upset when they see others are here too.."

So, can there people that believe but interpret the Bible different than you? Which is what I see where Christians that don't disagree on believe, but disagree on what it means in living your life. As opposed to Buddhist or non-Christians that truly don't believe. Seems silly to me. Live and let live, God will figure it out in the end.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The action and the outrage is likely overblown.

No serious person thinks G-d has a *****.

No serious person thinks this kind of virtue signaling accomplishes anything but keeps morons distracted.

---

You think God has a dick?

quash said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

The action and the outrage is likely overblown.

No serious person thinks G-d has a *****.

No serious person thinks this kind of virtue signaling accomplishes anything but keeps morons distracted.

---

You think God has a dick?

---

That is a pretty crude way to describe the Lord of Heaven...but yes God reveals himself to us as male.

As Father of all mankind.

And also, within the Trinity, as Son and Heavenly King.



[Man and woman are only patterned after the image of God they are not tiny "copies" of God. The fact that there are men and women does not require God to have male and female features. Remember, being made in the image of God has nothing to do with physical characteristics.

We know that God is a spiritual being and does not possess physical characteristics. This does not limit, however, how God may choose to reveal Himself to humanity. Scripture contains all the revelation God gave to humanity about Himself, and so it is the only objective source of information about God. In looking at what Scripture tells us, there are several observations of evidence about the form in which God revealed Himself to humanity.

Scripture contains approximately 170 references to God as the "Father." By necessity, one cannot be a father unless one is male. If God had chosen to be revealed to man in a female form, then the word "mother" would have occurred in these places, not "father." In the Old and New Testaments, masculine pronouns are used over and over again in reference to God.

Jesus Christ referred to God as the Father several times and in other cases used masculine pronouns in reference to God. In the Gospels alone, Christ uses the term "Father" in direct reference to God nearly 160 times. Of particular interest is Christ's statement in John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." Obviously, Jesus Christ came in the form of a human man to die on the cross as payment for the sins of the world. Like God the Father, Jesus was revealed to humanity in a male form. Scripture records numerous other instances where Christ utilized masculine nouns and pronouns in reference to God.]


https://www.gotquestions.org/God-male-female.html

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.

---

Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?

---

The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?

---

Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.

---

You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.

---

Which brings us to the whole point of the conversation. There are different interpretations out there.

The passage you used is a perfect example, you went with Matthew and a shorter look. I went with Luke and a broader perspective. Luke's passage adds all directions and the last/first to the equation. The Anglican Theologian's take that that everyone can get in and it may take longer for some, a reference to Purgatory. E,W, N, and S sure seems to imply a bigger group from all areas. Using the same passage. Christ is the way is the only commonality, what that means many will argue.

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong? None of us will know who is right for a while. So, live your life and believe. Sorry, I am getting less and less sure that there is one way as I get older.

Heck, where I grew up you were Catholic or Jewish, I knew Protestants existed but didn't meet one until I was 16. I have good friends that are Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and my Mom was Eastern Rite. They are all going to hell because they don't read the Bible like you or me?

---

But in Luke's version you referenced (your "broader perspective") didn't Jesus say that some were going to be excluded, i.e. "thrown out" of the kingdom, and the door "shut" to them?

Wasn't the reason for this their unbelief?

---

RMF, is the silence to my question a concession?

---

No, work. At some points in time work does get in the way of SicEm...

I don't disagree. I am sure some won't get in based on their beliefs in life. I also believe that some will take longer than others. But, whether I am right or wrong, won't find out until I find out!

Also, we were discussing the Church of England. They seem to have a more expansive interpretation than some.

Question, do you view Jesus's message as a message of inclusion or exclusion?

---

Isn't that made clear in scripture? It is both. Jesus' message was inclusive, to all who believe: "Whosoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.."

But it is also clear from scripture, that there are those who will be excluded, as exemplified in the Luke passage you referenced. Also the sheep and goats parable and the parable of the ten virgins: "I don't know you. Away from me!". Also, the parable of wedding feast, where one tries to sneak in and gets thrown out - just to name a few. It is exegetical dishonesty to say that Jesus didn't speak of exclusion.

---

I agree 100% that believe is a pre-requisite. Those who don't believe are not saved. What happens to them? I have no idea, in my mind it varies from being thrown into a pit of burning sulfur to ending up in the same place. I can make arguments for both. Reminds me of a joke about the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, who are as conservative as you get.

"Man died and ended up at Pearly Gates. St Peter showed him around Heaven. When they got to a certain corridor, St Peter said to the man to be very quite. The man asked why? St Peter said down there are the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans and they think they are the only ones here. They get upset when they see others are here too.."

So, can there people that believe but interpret the Bible different than you? Which is what I see where Christians that don't disagree on believe, but disagree on what it means in living your life. As opposed to Buddhist or non-Christians that truly don't believe. Seems silly to me. Live and let live, God will figure it out in the end.

---

I don't understand - you say those who don't believe aren't saved...but they can end up in the same place, which means they are saved?

And you keep taking the "do people have to believe the way you believe, or read the bible the way you do in order to be saved" angle. You're asking the wrong question. I'll ask you the more pertinent question - can the bible be interpreted WRONGLY? Can you believe wrongly? Or are all interpretations/beliefs valid?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.

---

Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?

---

The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?

---

Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.

---

You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.

---

Which brings us to the whole point of the conversation. There are different interpretations out there.

The passage you used is a perfect example, you went with Matthew and a shorter look. I went with Luke and a broader perspective. Luke's passage adds all directions and the last/first to the equation. The Anglican Theologian's take that that everyone can get in and it may take longer for some, a reference to Purgatory. E,W, N, and S sure seems to imply a bigger group from all areas. Using the same passage. Christ is the way is the only commonality, what that means many will argue.

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong? None of us will know who is right for a while. So, live your life and believe. Sorry, I am getting less and less sure that there is one way as I get older.

Heck, where I grew up you were Catholic or Jewish, I knew Protestants existed but didn't meet one until I was 16. I have good friends that are Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and my Mom was Eastern Rite. They are all going to hell because they don't read the Bible like you or me?

---

But in Luke's version you referenced (your "broader perspective") didn't Jesus say that some were going to be excluded, i.e. "thrown out" of the kingdom, and the door "shut" to them?

Wasn't the reason for this their unbelief?

---

RMF, is the silence to my question a concession?

---

No, work. At some points in time work does get in the way of SicEm...

I don't disagree. I am sure some won't get in based on their beliefs in life. I also believe that some will take longer than others. But, whether I am right or wrong, won't find out until I find out!

Also, we were discussing the Church of England. They seem to have a more expansive interpretation than some.

Question, do you view Jesus's message as a message of inclusion or exclusion?

---

Isn't that made clear in scripture? It is both. Jesus' message was inclusive, to all who believe: "Whosoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.."

But it is also clear from scripture, that there are those who will be excluded, as exemplified in the Luke passage you referenced. Also the sheep and goats parable and the parable of the ten virgins: "I don't know you. Away from me!". Also, the parable of wedding feast, where one tries to sneak in and gets thrown out - just to name a few. It is exegetical dishonesty to say that Jesus didn't speak of exclusion.

---

I agree 100% that believe is a pre-requisite. Those who don't believe are not saved. What happens to them? I have no idea, in my mind it varies from being thrown into a pit of burning sulfur to ending up in the same place. I can make arguments for both. Reminds me of a joke about the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, who are as conservative as you get.

"Man died and ended up at Pearly Gates. St Peter showed him around Heaven. When they got to a certain corridor, St Peter said to the man to be very quite. The man asked why? St Peter said down there are the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans and they think they are the only ones here. They get upset when they see others are here too.."

So, can there people that believe but interpret the Bible different than you? Which is what I see where Christians that don't disagree on believe, but disagree on what it means in living your life. As opposed to Buddhist or non-Christians that truly don't believe. Seems silly to me. Live and let live, God will figure it out in the end.

---

I don't understand - you say those who don't believe aren't saved...but they can end up in the same place, which means they are saved?

And you keep taking the "do people have to believe the way you believe, or read the bible the way you do in order to be saved" angle. You're asking the wrong question. I'll ask you the more pertinent question - can the bible be interpreted WRONGLY? Can you believe wrongly? Or are all interpretations/beliefs valid?

---

There may be a huge difference between what I believe and what is the actual truth! I can have all the faith in the world, if what I believe is not correct, it is not correct. I will have to wait and see. I think I am right, which is the best I can do.

As for your second question, we are not talking a one off here, CofE is a major denomination. Keeps going back to confidence level. I am pretty confident that I am interpreting the Bible correctly. But, it there no risk I am wrong? Of course not, I am human.

By the way you telling me I am wrong, just makes me laugh. You know as much as me and have the same risk of being wrong, as you are human. We do the best we can, what else can you ask and I do not believe God asks more than the what we can do.

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.

---

Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?

---

The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?

---

Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.

---

You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.

---

Which brings us to the whole point of the conversation. There are different interpretations out there.

The passage you used is a perfect example, you went with Matthew and a shorter look. I went with Luke and a broader perspective. Luke's passage adds all directions and the last/first to the equation. The Anglican Theologian's take that that everyone can get in and it may take longer for some, a reference to Purgatory. E,W, N, and S sure seems to imply a bigger group from all areas. Using the same passage. Christ is the way is the only commonality, what that means many will argue.

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong? None of us will know who is right for a while. So, live your life and believe. Sorry, I am getting less and less sure that there is one way as I get older.

Heck, where I grew up you were Catholic or Jewish, I knew Protestants existed but didn't meet one until I was 16. I have good friends that are Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and my Mom was Eastern Rite. They are all going to hell because they don't read the Bible like you or me?

---

But in Luke's version you referenced (your "broader perspective") didn't Jesus say that some were going to be excluded, i.e. "thrown out" of the kingdom, and the door "shut" to them?

Wasn't the reason for this their unbelief?

---

RMF, is the silence to my question a concession?

---

No, work. At some points in time work does get in the way of SicEm...

I don't disagree. I am sure some won't get in based on their beliefs in life. I also believe that some will take longer than others. But, whether I am right or wrong, won't find out until I find out!

Also, we were discussing the Church of England. They seem to have a more expansive interpretation than some.

Question, do you view Jesus's message as a message of inclusion or exclusion?

---

Isn't that made clear in scripture? It is both. Jesus' message was inclusive, to all who believe: "Whosoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.."

But it is also clear from scripture, that there are those who will be excluded, as exemplified in the Luke passage you referenced. Also the sheep and goats parable and the parable of the ten virgins: "I don't know you. Away from me!". Also, the parable of wedding feast, where one tries to sneak in and gets thrown out - just to name a few. It is exegetical dishonesty to say that Jesus didn't speak of exclusion.

---

I agree 100% that believe is a pre-requisite. Those who don't believe are not saved. What happens to them? I have no idea, in my mind it varies from being thrown into a pit of burning sulfur to ending up in the same place. I can make arguments for both. Reminds me of a joke about the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, who are as conservative as you get.

"Man died and ended up at Pearly Gates. St Peter showed him around Heaven. When they got to a certain corridor, St Peter said to the man to be very quite. The man asked why? St Peter said down there are the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans and they think they are the only ones here. They get upset when they see others are here too.."

So, can there people that believe but interpret the Bible different than you? Which is what I see where Christians that don't disagree on believe, but disagree on what it means in living your life. As opposed to Buddhist or non-Christians that truly don't believe. Seems silly to me. Live and let live, God will figure it out in the end.

---

I don't understand - you say those who don't believe aren't saved...but they can end up in the same place, which means they are saved?

And you keep taking the "do people have to believe the way you believe, or read the bible the way you do in order to be saved" angle. You're asking the wrong question. I'll ask you the more pertinent question - can the bible be interpreted WRONGLY? Can you believe wrongly? Or are all interpretations/beliefs valid?

---

There may be a huge difference between what I believe and what is the actual truth! I can have all the faith in the world, if what I believe is not correct, it is not correct. I will have to wait and see. I think I am right, which is the best I can do.

As for your second question, we are not talking a one off here, CofE is a major denomination. Keeps going back to confidence level. I am pretty confident that I am interpreting the Bible correctly. But, it there no risk I am wrong? Of course not, I am human.

By the way you telling me I am wrong, just makes me laugh. You know as much as me and have the same risk of being wrong, as you are human. We do the best we can, what else can you ask and I do not believe God asks more than the what we can do.

---

So let's start easy - there's a guy here who professes to be a Christian, and he says that the Bible does NOT teach that God created the universe and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead.

Is he wrong?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.

---

Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?

---

The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?

---

Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.

---

You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.

---

Which brings us to the whole point of the conversation. There are different interpretations out there.

The passage you used is a perfect example, you went with Matthew and a shorter look. I went with Luke and a broader perspective. Luke's passage adds all directions and the last/first to the equation. The Anglican Theologian's take that that everyone can get in and it may take longer for some, a reference to Purgatory. E,W, N, and S sure seems to imply a bigger group from all areas. Using the same passage. Christ is the way is the only commonality, what that means many will argue.

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong? None of us will know who is right for a while. So, live your life and believe. Sorry, I am getting less and less sure that there is one way as I get older.

Heck, where I grew up you were Catholic or Jewish, I knew Protestants existed but didn't meet one until I was 16. I have good friends that are Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and my Mom was Eastern Rite. They are all going to hell because they don't read the Bible like you or me?

---

But in Luke's version you referenced (your "broader perspective") didn't Jesus say that some were going to be excluded, i.e. "thrown out" of the kingdom, and the door "shut" to them?

Wasn't the reason for this their unbelief?

---

RMF, is the silence to my question a concession?

---

No, work. At some points in time work does get in the way of SicEm...

I don't disagree. I am sure some won't get in based on their beliefs in life. I also believe that some will take longer than others. But, whether I am right or wrong, won't find out until I find out!

Also, we were discussing the Church of England. They seem to have a more expansive interpretation than some.

Question, do you view Jesus's message as a message of inclusion or exclusion?

---

Isn't that made clear in scripture? It is both. Jesus' message was inclusive, to all who believe: "Whosoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.."

But it is also clear from scripture, that there are those who will be excluded, as exemplified in the Luke passage you referenced. Also the sheep and goats parable and the parable of the ten virgins: "I don't know you. Away from me!". Also, the parable of wedding feast, where one tries to sneak in and gets thrown out - just to name a few. It is exegetical dishonesty to say that Jesus didn't speak of exclusion.

---

I agree 100% that believe is a pre-requisite. Those who don't believe are not saved. What happens to them? I have no idea, in my mind it varies from being thrown into a pit of burning sulfur to ending up in the same place. I can make arguments for both. Reminds me of a joke about the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, who are as conservative as you get.

"Man died and ended up at Pearly Gates. St Peter showed him around Heaven. When they got to a certain corridor, St Peter said to the man to be very quite. The man asked why? St Peter said down there are the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans and they think they are the only ones here. They get upset when they see others are here too.."

So, can there people that believe but interpret the Bible different than you? Which is what I see where Christians that don't disagree on believe, but disagree on what it means in living your life. As opposed to Buddhist or non-Christians that truly don't believe. Seems silly to me. Live and let live, God will figure it out in the end.

---

I don't understand - you say those who don't believe aren't saved...but they can end up in the same place, which means they are saved?

And you keep taking the "do people have to believe the way you believe, or read the bible the way you do in order to be saved" angle. You're asking the wrong question. I'll ask you the more pertinent question - can the bible be interpreted WRONGLY? Can you believe wrongly? Or are all interpretations/beliefs valid?

---

There may be a huge difference between what I believe and what is the actual truth! I can have all the faith in the world, if what I believe is not correct, it is not correct. I will have to wait and see. I think I am right, which is the best I can do.

As for your second question, we are not talking a one off here, CofE is a major denomination. Keeps going back to confidence level. I am pretty confident that I am interpreting the Bible correctly. But, it there no risk I am wrong? Of course not, I am human.

By the way you telling me I am wrong, just makes me laugh. You know as much as me and have the same risk of being wrong, as you are human. We do the best we can, what else can you ask and I do not believe God asks more than the what we can do.

---

So let's start easy - there's a guy here who professes to be a Christian, and he says that the Bible does NOT teach that God created the universe and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead.

Is he wrong?

---

Tough to be a Christian and not believe in the resurrection.

As for the Universe, I believe in God creating the Universe and that he has revealed "himself" as the "Intelligent Designer". Was it done in 7 earth days and everything created with age as the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans believe? No. Is it a pre-requisite for being a Chrisitian? I say no.

The resurrection is a non-starter in my opinion! That is of the basic tenant of Christianity. We can quibble over the other stuff, but if you do not believe Christ rose or is the Son of God? Yeah, that is a stretch I can't reconcile/

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

This is just another episode of politics in the pulpit. It's done for power. No mention of a basis in theology or archaeology of the Bible.

that's been the tactic all along.

---

Not every Christian faith takes the literal interpretation of the Bible as law. I know Baptist do in some respects. You may not agree. scratch that DO not agree. There are interpretations different than the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with the view of the sacramental aspect of the mass/service. Others in the readings. Others in the interpretation.

There is a school of thought that the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM". So, having different approaches is more necessary now than it was a hundred or thousand years ago. Social Media is going to expand that exponentially. At what point do "Christians" stop arguing with each other and be more concerned about the number not believing?

---

The concern about the number not believing should never lead to compromise of the truth. Christians are not charged with getting the most people to believe. They are to tell the truth and however many believe, will believe. If the truth is being distorted in order to appeal to more people, then God's Word is being conformed to man, when it should be the other way around.

Look carefully at what you said: "... the "non-sexual Almighty" wants to broaden the path for humans in these times to find there way to "I AM"". Jesus clearly told us to take the NARROW path to God, and that "broad is the path to destruction". Shouldn't this give one pause about the spirit behind this movement?

---

Well, I would argue that we are talking two different things.

The path is narrow, but that is a personal choice and believe. What you actually believe and do.

Allowing more people access to be able to make that decision is a different proposition. That allows more people to make that choice.

We don't convince or "get" any one to believe. It is the Holy Spirit. Getting more people access to the Holy Spirit is our job. Fishers of men...

How many or who gets in is not in our charge. There are numerous finding our way to God readings - "lost sheep", prodigal son, and from the same reading "people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

Getting more people in the conversation is not the same as getting in. A turn style is narrow entrance, but eventually many will get through. It is up to the person to go through.

---

You don't distort God's word so you can get more people in the conversation. Why introduce them to truth through lies? Appealing to man's itchy ears is the broad path. So no, we're not talking two different things.

Are you not at all concerned that you used the exact words/concept of "broad path" that Jesus himself warned us against? Does that not raise any red flags to you? Because to a Christian guided by the Spirit, hellish alarm bells should go off.

---

Which brings us to the whole point of the conversation. There are different interpretations out there.

The passage you used is a perfect example, you went with Matthew and a shorter look. I went with Luke and a broader perspective. Luke's passage adds all directions and the last/first to the equation. The Anglican Theologian's take that that everyone can get in and it may take longer for some, a reference to Purgatory. E,W, N, and S sure seems to imply a bigger group from all areas. Using the same passage. Christ is the way is the only commonality, what that means many will argue.

If the Anglican Church believes they are being true to the message, are they wrong? None of us will know who is right for a while. So, live your life and believe. Sorry, I am getting less and less sure that there is one way as I get older.

Heck, where I grew up you were Catholic or Jewish, I knew Protestants existed but didn't meet one until I was 16. I have good friends that are Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and my Mom was Eastern Rite. They are all going to hell because they don't read the Bible like you or me?

---

But in Luke's version you referenced (your "broader perspective") didn't Jesus say that some were going to be excluded, i.e. "thrown out" of the kingdom, and the door "shut" to them?

Wasn't the reason for this their unbelief?

---

RMF, is the silence to my question a concession?

---

No, work. At some points in time work does get in the way of SicEm...

I don't disagree. I am sure some won't get in based on their beliefs in life. I also believe that some will take longer than others. But, whether I am right or wrong, won't find out until I find out!

Also, we were discussing the Church of England. They seem to have a more expansive interpretation than some.

Question, do you view Jesus's message as a message of inclusion or exclusion?

---

Isn't that made clear in scripture? It is both. Jesus' message was inclusive, to all who believe: "Whosoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.."

But it is also clear from scripture, that there are those who will be excluded, as exemplified in the Luke passage you referenced. Also the sheep and goats parable and the parable of the ten virgins: "I don't know you. Away from me!". Also, the parable of wedding feast, where one tries to sneak in and gets thrown out - just to name a few. It is exegetical dishonesty to say that Jesus didn't speak of exclusion.

---

I agree 100% that believe is a pre-requisite. Those who don't believe are not saved. What happens to them? I have no idea, in my mind it varies from being thrown into a pit of burning sulfur to ending up in the same place. I can make arguments for both. Reminds me of a joke about the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, who are as conservative as you get.

"Man died and ended up at Pearly Gates. St Peter showed him around Heaven. When they got to a certain corridor, St Peter said to the man to be very quite. The man asked why? St Peter said down there are the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans and they think they are the only ones here. They get upset when they see others are here too.."

So, can there people that believe but interpret the Bible different than you? Which is what I see where Christians that don't disagree on believe, but disagree on what it means in living your life. As opposed to Buddhist or non-Christians that truly don't believe. Seems silly to me. Live and let live, God will figure it out in the end.

---

I don't understand - you say those who don't believe aren't saved...but they can end up in the same place, which means they are saved?

And you keep taking the "do people have to believe the way you believe, or read the bible the way you do in order to be saved" angle. You're asking the wrong question. I'll ask you the more pertinent question - can the bible be interpreted WRONGLY? Can you believe wrongly? Or are all interpretations/beliefs valid?

---

There may be a huge difference between what I believe and what is the actual truth! I can have all the faith in the world, if what I believe is not correct, it is not correct. I will have to wait and see. I think I am right, which is the best I can do.

As for your second question, we are not talking a one off here, CofE is a major denomination. Keeps going back to confidence level. I am pretty confident that I am interpreting the Bible correctly. But, it there no risk I am wrong? Of course not, I am human.

By the way you telling me I am wrong, just makes me laugh. You know as much as me and have the same risk of being wrong, as you are human. We do the best we can, what else can you ask and I do not believe God asks more than the what we can do.

---

So let's start easy - there's a guy here who professes to be a Christian, and he says that the Bible does NOT teach that God created the universe and that Jesus did NOT rise bodily from the dead.

Is he wrong?

---

Tough to be a Christian and not believe in the resurrection.

As for the Universe, I believe in God creating the Universe and that he has revealed "himself" as the "Intelligent Designer". Was it done in 7 earth days and everything created with age as the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans believe? No. Is it a pre-requisite for being a Chrisitian? I say no.

The resurrection is a non-starter in my opinion! That is of the basic tenant of Christianity. We can quibble over the other stuff, but if you do not believe Christ rose or is the Son of God? Yeah, that is a stretch I can't reconcile/

---

But can't this person then say that he has a different interpretation, and that you think everyone should believe like you do, or read the bible like you do, in order to be a Christian? Because that is exactly what he says. And you made that exact same comment as well.

BTW, in an earlier conversation I had with you, you said that if miracles were not true, then it would not affect your faith, remember? I said that you were wrong, that the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus was the foundation of the faith. It seems as if you are now in agreement with me. I'm very glad to see that. But....doesn't this show that I can indeed be right, and you wrong? Weren't you saying that you "laugh" at me telling you that you are wrong? Doesn't this show that one Christian can indeed be more right than another, and that perhaps you should be more open to the possibility that other interpretations of yours are incorrect as well?

The fact that it gets such a negative world ending reaction from you zealots means they're probably right. I would not care for this, but how could any sane person have an issue with this?

Changing Jesus to a gender neutral being is the point where I'd have a problem. In any denomination believing in the Trinity God the Father is taught not to have gender, but to just be described that way, as a father figure. They are just canonizing popular belief.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/church-of-england-crack-up/


The recently concluded Anglican synod decided not to approve same-sex marriage rites, but instead to go ahead and bless same-sex partnerships.

[This pleases nobody. Pro-LGBT Anglicans rightly ask why gay relationships are good enough to bless, but not good enough to solemnize as marriage. Trad Anglicans rightly ask why, if gays cannot be married because homosexuality is a sin, the Anglican Church is nevertheless blessing something sinful.

They're both right. This compromise makes no sense. The center cannot hold. If the progressives accept it, it's because they understand that this is how it goes -- it's the next step to full affirmation. This is also a sign to every other church in the West today: there is no way to fudge this issue, or to avoid it. It must be faced. Either the Bible's prohibition on homosexual acts because they are sinful is valid, or it is not. It cannot be valid sometimes, and in some places. There is no middle ground....]

Fun topic! Makes sense that Scripture's addressing all humans in the masculine "man" can, maybe perhaps, be read and understood in non-gender terms. But if Scripture is the key here since it is the point of all this, it behooves all of us to pay close attention to Jesus' references to God: always as "Father". Not much wiggle room for wordsmithing this specific name, even with the discombobulated thinking about the application of the gendered noun by modern-day sophomoric thinking. Reminds me of a plaque my daughter had on her desk at the school district's legal office: "You're not stupid.You're just not lucky at thinking."

At the end of the day I would think the Anglicans had more important priorities than introducing Cultural sexual politics into the Church.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

At the end of the day I would think the Anglicans had more important priorities than introducing Cultural sexual politics into the Church.

---

rank and file Anglicans are just trying to keep the lights on in their local parish churches.

Its the academic/political side of Anglican leadership and the Bishops that are obsessed with pushing gender and sexual politics into the Church.

You can see this same thing play out in the USA among the laity and the leadership.

My Uncle & Aunt just left their church because the new pastor would not stop talking about race and feminism.

They are just trying to go to a Church to pray, learn about God, have some community, and help people locally with volunteer work...not be transported into a college class room and under the thump of a modern professor.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

At the end of the day I would think the Anglicans had more important priorities than introducing Cultural sexual politics into the Church.

---

rank and file Anglicans are just trying to keep the lights on in their local parish churches.

Its the academic/political side of Anglican leadership and the Bishops that are obsessed with pushing gender and sexual politics into the Church.

You can see this same thing play out in the USA among the laity and the leadership.

My Uncle & Aunt just left their church because the new pastor would not stop talking about race and feminism.

They are just trying to go to a Church to pray, learn about God, have some community, and help people locally with volunteer work...not be transported into a college class room and under the thump of a modern professor.

---

That makes sense. The professional clergy and academics traditionally have navel-gazed about things that do not impact the average parishoner. I think Baylor is probably much the same - fetishizing things that the average student and family that pays tuition cares little about but wins you points on the cocktail circuit.

We had a textbook situation here ... there was a thriving Methodist Church with lots of young families involved and doing good ministry, but the pastor was so obsessed with the Gaystapo fetish of the moment he eventually ran most of them off. He turned a vibrant Christian community into an empty built with Gaystapo flags.

We visited once - but when he hyphenated his last name I knew where this would end.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

At the end of the day I would think the Anglicans had more important priorities than introducing Cultural sexual politics into the Church.

---

rank and file Anglicans are just trying to keep the lights on in their local parish churches.

Its the academic/political side of Anglican leadership and the Bishops that are obsessed with pushing gender and sexual politics into the Church.

You can see this same thing play out in the USA among the laity and the leadership.

My Uncle & Aunt just left their church because the new pastor would not stop talking about race and feminism.

They are just trying to go to a Church to pray, learn about God, have some community, and help people locally with volunteer work...not be transported into a college class room and under the thump of a modern professor.

---

That makes sense. The professional clergy and academics traditionally have navel-gazed about things that do not impact the average parishoner. I think Baylor is probably much the same - fetishizing things that the average student and family that pays tuition cares little about but wins you points on the cocktail circuit.

We had a textbook situation here ... there was a thriving Methodist Church with lots of young families involved and doing good ministry, but the pastor was so obsessed with the Gaystapo fetish of the moment he eventually ran most of them off. He turned a vibrant Christian community into an empty built with Gaystapo flags.

We visited once - but when he hyphenated his last name I knew where this would end.

---

downtown Waco?

Oscar Wilde said: "the Catholic Church is for great saints and great sinners. For the rest, the Church of England will do."

God bless the African and Asian #Christians who have taken a stand against the Anglos and conversos besmirching and perverting the #churchofenglandhttps://t.co/1NitvQQ8iP

— Nick Griffin (@NickGriffinBU) February 20, 2023

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/anglican-vicar-fired-for-christian-sermon-loses-court-case/

[You might recall that in 2019, the Rev. Dr. Bernard Randall, an Anglican priest serving as the chaplain of Trent College, a Church of England school, delivered a sermon telling students that they did not have to accept ideological claims made by LGBT activists, but they did have to treat all with respect and civility.

That led the school to report him to the government's anti-terrorist Prevent program, secretly. When the government found the kindly vicar (I met him last summer; he is a gentleman and a gentle man) to be no threat at all, the school then put him in a vise...]

'It's been well over three and a half years since I gave that sermon and my life just exploded.'

Reverend Dr Bernard Randall joins @CalvinRobinson to discuss losing his 'unfair' dismissal case for telling pupils it was 'okay' to disagree with LGBT ideology. pic.twitter.com/DdFJpYOLAx

— GB News (@GBNEWS) February 26, 2023

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dragging-the-church-of-england-to-extinction/

Progressivism will hollow out your religion and wear its skin like a trophy https://t.co/iNzm3FjZMj

— Mary Harrington (@moveincircles) March 3, 2023

[Why would anybody who is serious about the Christian religion trivialize it like this? Who could possibly take this religion seriously? I know gay Christians who would find this kind of thing inappropriate at best, and blasphemous at worst. It's narcissistic as hell. There's nothing holy here at all. And drag queens in the church, performing? This is 100 percent a sign that these people aren't serious about the faith. A bunch of children. W.H. Auden was an Anglican, openly gay, and not chaste, yet it is impossible to imagine a man of his spiritual, artistic, and intellectual seriousness tolerating trivial blasphemy like this. It's Gay Clown Mass.

The only comfort is knowing that in a decade or two, this church building will be a condominium or a restaurant, and the few English Christians left who actually believe in the God of the Bible will be elsewhere, probably in the unfashionable suburbs, or ethnic neighborhoods.

The parish was designed and built by Sir Christopher Wren -- see history here -- and now look below: the lady rector is hosting an hourlong conversation with a drag queen named Fever Dream. This is what happens if you don't hold the line. The Archbishop of Canterbury is as silent about the abomination at that historic London parish..

According to one data analyst, if current trends continue, the Church of England will cease to exist around 2060, as the last Anglicans die out. (Don't gloat, Catholics: just because your English parishes aren't hosting drag queens, your parishes are on the same downward trajectory timeline, according to the same analysis.) Who knew the apocalypse for English Christianity would be like a Monty Python skit?]

Redbrickbear said:

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dragging-the-church-of-england-to-extinction/

Progressivism will hollow out your religion and wear its skin like a trophy https://t.co/iNzm3FjZMj

— Mary Harrington (@moveincircles) March 3, 2023

[Why would anybody who is serious about the Christian religion trivialize it like this? Who could possibly take this religion seriously? I know gay Christians who would find this kind of thing inappropriate at best, and blasphemous at worst. It's narcissistic as hell. There's nothing holy here at all. And drag queens in the church, performing? This is 100 percent a sign that these people aren't serious about the faith. A bunch of children. W.H. Auden was an Anglican, openly gay, and not chaste, yet it is impossible to imagine a man of his spiritual, artistic, and intellectual seriousness tolerating trivial blasphemy like this. It's Gay Clown Mass.

The only comfort is knowing that in a decade or two, this church building will be a condominium or a restaurant, and the few English Christians left who actually believe in the God of the Bible will be elsewhere, probably in the unfashionable suburbs, or ethnic neighborhoods.

The parish was designed and built by Sir Christopher Wren -- see history here -- and now look below: the lady rector is hosting an hourlong conversation with a drag queen named Fever Dream. This is what happens if you don't hold the line. The Archbishop of Canterbury is as silent about the abomination at that historic London parish..

According to one data analyst, if current trends continue, the Church of England will cease to exist around 2060, as the last Anglicans die out. (Don't gloat, Catholics: just because your English parishes aren't hosting drag queens, your parishes are on the same downward trajectory timeline, according to the same analysis.) Who knew the apocalypse for English Christianity would be like a Monty Python skit?]

---

As a great surprise, banning guns in England did not change the hearts of the criminals. UK, Australia, and Canada now have laws banning hand weapons such as knives, clubs, sling-shots, swords, spears, throwing stars and num-chucks. pic.twitter.com/XqrO6bNQOY

— Post hole Digger (@NPostholedigger) March 3, 2023