One Wrong Condemns Them to Hell

#26
#26
LouderVol said:
I quibble with the church too. Taking part in the upcoming synod hopefully. They arent the arbitrators of heaven/hell as much as they want to be, again something I quibble with.

Also limbo is different than hell. If you are operating under the assumption they exist as described. I may not have commented on the title if it said limbo.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church as taken their whole misreading of the „keys“ to Heaven statement to Peter WAAAAAAY past its intended meaning. And then linking (based on nothing more than Tradition) That supposed Power exclusively to the Bishop of Rome compounds the error further.
And the whole theory of limbo or purgatory is scripturaly suspect at best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#28
#28
Volaholic320 said:
Yes, Christianity is not Roman catholicism.
Click to expand...
There is a LOT i feel that the Church of Rome gets wrong. But I am sure that much that my church says is off the mark as well. So I will not condemn others. But obviously, i believe my Protestant beliefs are CLOSER to the truth , otherwise I wouldn’t BE a Protestant 😉
 
#29
#29
OrangeTsar said:
There is a LOT i feel that the Church of Rome gets wrong. But I am sure that much that my church says is off the mark as well. So I will not condemn others. But obviously, i believe my Protestant beliefs are CLOSER to the truth , otherwise I wouldn’t BE a Protestant 😉
Click to expand...
I find that typically the disagreements arent over what either side should consider imprtant. What is a sin vs what isnt, what is closer to God vs what isnt.

There are plenty of differences of degrees, but considering it's all up to God anyway it's a bit of a moot point because no one has God figured out 100% to where one side is "right" vs one side being "wrong".

I do find it humourous that people dont think my FAITH is valid because of what some fellow practitioners do or did. Its lazy and means they completely miss the point.
 
#30
#30
LouderVol said:
They do. My second paragraph was tongue in cheek.

According to the church after confirmation it's not on the parents what the child does in relation to their faith choices.
Click to expand...

In the Mormon church, they have something called the age of accountability. You cannot get baptized (or even sin) before age 8. Guess how many Mormon kids from church-going families get baptized immediately at age 8? I would guess 99%.

If your kid doesn't get baptized at age 8, it would make people's heads explode. There is a tremendous amount of pressure (that most people don't even feel because they are all too happy to go along with it, it seems). The church gets to say "we don't baptize babies" but come on...do you really think an 8-year-old is ready to make a lifelong covenant? Sure kept the church's numbers up .a long time but I think things are starting to fall apart for them a little bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEPPERJAX
#32
#32
n_huffhines said:
In the Mormon church, they have something called the age of accountability. You cannot get baptized (or even sin) before age 8. Guess how many Mormon kids from church-going families get baptized immediately at age 8? I would guess 99%.

If your kid doesn't get baptized at age 8, it would make people's heads explode. There is a tremendous amount of pressure (that most people don't even feel because they are all too happy to go along with it, it seems). The church gets to say "we don't baptize babies" but come on...do you really think an 8-year-old is ready to make a lifelong covenant? Sure kept the church's numbers up .a long time but I think things are starting to fall apart for them a little bit.
Click to expand...

Right
I got baptized at 8. Lifelong sinner after that immersion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#33
#33
PEPPERJAX said:
Right
I got baptized at 8. Lifelong sinner after that immersion.
Click to expand...

I'm not even joking, when I was about 6 or 7 years old I thought about killing myself (somehow with my bow and arrow) so that I could go straight to heaven, having never sinned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEPPERJAX
#34
#34
n_huffhines said:
I'm not even joking, when I was about 6 or 7 years old I thought about killing myself (somehow with my bow and arrow) so that I could go straight to heaven, having never sinned.
Click to expand...
Whoa! I never considered doing that. I was simply chiming in saying I got baptized at 8 like most LDS kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#35
#35
n_huffhines said:
In the Mormon church, they have something called the age of accountability. You cannot get baptized (or even sin) before age 8. Guess how many Mormon kids from church-going families get baptized immediately at age 8? I would guess 99%.

If your kid doesn't get baptized at age 8, it would make people's heads explode. There is a tremendous amount of pressure (that most people don't even feel because they are all too happy to go along with it, it seems). The church gets to say "we don't baptize babies" but come on...do you really think an 8-year-old is ready to make a lifelong covenant? Sure kept the church's numbers up .a long time but I think things are starting to fall apart for them a little bit.
Click to expand...
Are we ever really ready for that Covenant? More of a philosophical rhetorical question.

I agree with your point, I am just not sure where that line would be. For Catholics that line somewhere in high school. Most kids have hit their rebellious phase so saying no isnt as much of thing as it would at a younger age. Still plenty who dip out once out of their parents house, but I think a secondary/later "confirmation" makes sense.
 
#36
#36
NurseGoodVol said:
Someone actually wrote an article about this. If you dedicate your child to Christ you raise them by God’s laws. Sprinkling water on their forehead once shouldn’t change how they were raised. I understand this is important to Catholics but in the scheme of things you’ve got years to bring your children up to know right and wrong. This one wrong word doesn’t tear it all down.
Click to expand...

There are catholic biblical scholars that would appear to disagree.
 
#37
#37
LouderVol said:
Are we ever really ready for that Covenant? More of a philosophical rhetorical question.

I agree with your point, I am just not sure where that line would be. For Catholics that line somewhere in high school. Most kids have hit their rebellious phase so saying no isnt as much of thing as it would at a younger age. Still plenty who dip out once out of their parents house, but I think a secondary/later "confirmation" makes sense.
Click to expand...

Mid-to-late teens seem like a pretty good age to start. Kids don't usually start getting their own ideas about the world before that. If 99% of children raised in it are choosing it at age 8 and fewer than 1% of adults who were not raised in it will choose it, that tells you something.

And don't worry, Mormons have created an explanation for this. They think people born into the covenant were more righteous in the pre-existence.
 
#38
#38
n_huffhines said:
In the Mormon church, they have something called the age of accountability. You cannot get baptized (or even sin) before age 8. Guess how many Mormon kids from church-going families get baptized immediately at age 8? I would guess 99%.

If your kid doesn't get baptized at age 8, it would make people's heads explode. There is a tremendous amount of pressure (that most people don't even feel because they are all too happy to go along with it, it seems). The church gets to say "we don't baptize babies" but come on...do you really think an 8-year-old is ready to make a lifelong covenant? Sure kept the church's numbers up .a long time but I think things are starting to fall apart for them a little bit.
Click to expand...

But it doesn’t stop at life-long does it? I mean after death is when the fun really begins.

What about the dead folks that get baptized? They never even had a choice or got asked.
 
#39
#39
rjd970 said:
But it doesn’t stop at life-long does it? I mean after death is when the fun really begins.
Click to expand...

If you say so.

What about the dead folks that get baptized? They never even had a choice or got asked.
Click to expand...

The church's line of reasoning is that they have a choice to accept the proxy work, or reject it. But yeah, it's a bit problematic. I think the church requires a relative of the deceased to submit them for dead baptism, but not sure how tight the rule is enforced.
 
#41
#41
n_huffhines said:
I would say the douchiest thing a disciple of Christ can do is say that other disciples of Christ are not Christian because you disagree with their manner of worship.
Click to expand...
BS. If a Christian sect handles snakes or promotes homosexuality as not a sin or supports abortion or doesn’t believe in Jesus as the Son of God then they don’t believe in biblical Truth
 
#42
#42
Rickyvol77 said:
BS. If a Christian sect handles snakes or promotes homosexuality as not a sin or supports abortion or doesn’t believe in Jesus as the Son of God then they don’t believe in biblical Truth
Click to expand...

Biblical truth now that is a laugher.

However, is having unmarried sex between a man and a woman the same level sin as unmarried sex between gay partners.
 
#43
#43
Rickyvol77 said:
BS. If a Christian sect handles snakes or promotes homosexuality as not a sin or supports abortion or doesn’t believe in Jesus as the Son of God then they don’t believe in biblical Truth
Click to expand...

It sounds like you belong to a wild congregation.
 
#46
#46
Rickyvol77 said:
BS. If a Christian sect handles snakes or promotes homosexuality as not a sin or supports abortion or doesn’t believe in Jesus as the Son of God then they don’t believe in biblical Truth
Click to expand...

Christians are not necessarily people that believe in "biblical Truth" whatever that means. The first Christians had no Bible, so obviously that isn't requisite. Christian is literally just a follower of Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
#47
#47
n_huffhines said:
Christians are not necessarily people that believe in "biblical Truth" whatever that means. The first Christians had no Bible, so obviously that isn't requisite. Christian is literally just a follower of Christ.
Click to expand...
The first Christians literally were 1st or 2nd hand witnesses of Christ and his words and deeds. Mormons “follow” Christ but they are 100% heretical to actual biblical truths
 
#48
#48
Rickyvol77 said:
The first Christians literally were 1st or 2nd hand witnesses of Christ and his words and deeds. Mormons “follow” Christ but they are 100% heretical to actual biblical truths
Click to expand...

Those stories had been told, retold, retooled, reworked etc before most "christians" ever heard them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#49
#49
Rickyvol77 said:
Sin is sin. There’s no excuse for either before God
Click to expand...

Why don't churches shun those that have premarital sex like they do homosexuals?

Certainly there must be some sort of hierarchy of sins? If I go out and rape and murder children like it's my job vs. I engage in premarital sex one time. Certainly god must punish the two a little differently, no?
 
#50
#50
n_huffhines said:
If you say so.
Click to expand...

I don’t say so, the Church does. No?

This isn’t a lifelong decision, it is for eternity. I would imagine the Church believes calling it a life-long covenant is selling short of what is really being done.

n_huffhines said:
The church's line of reasoning is that they have a choice to accept the proxy work, or reject it. But yeah, it's a bit problematic. I think the church requires a relative of the deceased to submit them for dead baptism, but not sure how tight the rule is enforced.
Click to expand...

How does someone that is dead “accept the proxy”?

By the way, there was a legal dispute about 10 years ago I think about a group of Jews that took offense to the practice. Anne Frank and others were found to have been baptized by proxy, so I seriously doubt the church had any kind of authorization from the deceased families for doing it before that. Legally I’m sure they viewed the practice as non-impactful (rightfully so) but that contradicts the churches teachings on the impact to the deceased.

The whole idea is silly IMO and I wouldn’t care either way. It isn’t like any of it has any real real impact outside of the imaginary. Especially if I’m dead, what do I care? That is, until somebody actually takes offense to it because it impacts their own theological beliefs.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top