Get Them Dunked. Get them dunked in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and they are saved.

Anybody?

Hi Tucker--

Can you explain more what you're thinking about?

Hi there, Tucker!

Are you talking about infant Baptism? If so, I do believe there is a miracle that occurs when an infant is Baptized: she or he is cleansed of Original Sin and brought into the Kingdom of God, saved from eternal death.

I had an experience of being present and very close to the infant Baptism of my cousin A. She was a newborn and I was about 13. As the priest said the blessing and poured water over her head, I had the distinct experience of feeling a showering down of the Holy Spirit. A shower of Peace just gently descended upon her and I felt it.

As an infant, I was born sickly and near death, the story goes. My gm, who delivered me, insisted I be taken to be baptized immediately as she feared I'd die immanently. So my aunt strapped me to her back, walked a bunch of miles through the mountains to the nearest Catholic Church. Not only was I saved, but also apparently spontaneously healed of whatever the ailment. I thank God for the priest who gave me this Sacrament. I thank God for my gm and aunt!

I got New Life in Christ as well as another chance of life in this flesh. Two for the price of one.

And what do you think getting dunked, Tucker?

Shasha, were you born in Albania?

Guys this topic was created to be really open ended. To be approached from any angle that anybody wished to.

There is a controversy in Christianity about whether or not baptism by immersion is more valid than sprinkling.

There are also Christian ministries that just baptize folks by immersion in the name of our Lord and Savior and these folks that are baptized are considered saved by the ones that baptized them. Every time they baptize somebody by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ, they have saved a soul.

Just get them dunked in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior and they are saved.

My mother tells a story about her father and mother. Her father was a Baptist and her Mother was a Presbyterian (I think). Her father was worried that her mother was not saved unless she was dunked. Baptized by immersion. In the end her mother agreed to be dunked, but always claimed that she was still saved before being dunked.

I was sprinkled as a Lutheran and then later dunked as a First Christian. When my wife and I got married I insisted that she be baptized. She loves Jesus so she agreed. We both were baptized by immersion together by the First Christian minister that baptized me the first time. The minister that had baptized us had retired from the First Christian church and I had quit going to the church when he retired. So my wife has never gone to that church and my wife and I have never found a church that we want to go to. Is my wife still saved?

quote:

Originally posted by Ariel Jaffe:
Shasha, were you born in Albania?

Sort of. I was born in the Hoti clan of Albanians who lived on one of the mountains that border Albania and Montenegro (used to be called Yugoslavia).

Lucky for me, the RC Church decided to convert those peasant Albanian hill-billies. When you have nothing, it's easier to receive the Good News.

Shasha.

Ooooh, what a neat personal Baptism story and history! Right out of the starting blocks the Lord is at your side intervening in a powerful way to assure His newborn daughter is taken care of both spiritually and physically.

Through the intervening cooperation of your G’ma – one who knew what she should do and where she should go…. and DID go! Immediately. She acted on her beliefs! Her faith made a difference.

Kind of like the Magi, who because they were in motion and acting on their faith, arrived where they should be and at the right moment and found what they were after.

Neat that God has had His finger in your pie all your lifelong. Neat that you can know that in such a powerful way.

Over the mountains and through the woods to Grandmother’s house we go!

Them folk from the ‘pre-modern’ church knew how to ‘emerge’. LOL!

Pop-pop

Tuck

Is your wife saved?

Within Catholicism, our understanding, based on numerous scripture passages – a smattering of which I’ve listed below -- a person is not saved by Baptism alone. By Baptism one is introduced into the vine – but one must remain in the vine; one must remain in Christ; one must continue to run the good race, one must maintain oil in his or her lamp and maintain a clean wedding garment. Catholic belief does not accept the ‘once saved always saved’ thinking of some Protestant denominations.

As for spritz versus dunk – the real issue is not the quantity of water but the quality of heart. True circumcision is circumcision of heart – is one’s desire baptism into Christ; have you decided to follow Jesus? Are you looking to be baptized or not? Do you believe that God is such a legalistic lawyer that He would not consider your condition of heart? Would you believe that He would rather deny you the graces of Baptism because of issues with the water quantity or water salinity or water purity, or whether it is fluoridated? What is our heavenly father looking for if not our heart?

In Shasha’s case, her G’ma’s desire for Shasha (for whom she interceded, since Shasha was unable) was Baptism into Christ. She wanted Baptism for her Shasha. She climbed the mountain for just that reason. (And evidently – and not surprisingly, God wanted Baptism for Shasha as well). That’s what the priest asks of parents bringing an infant for Baptism: “What do you ask of the church?”

Of course, as Shasha grows up she will via Confirmation sacramentally and by how she continues to live her life (that is by continuing to remain in the vine as demonstrated by obedience to God’s commandments) the gifting Baptism brings will or will not be confirmed.

Looks to me like she’s got a nice supply of oil in her lamp these days!

A few relevant scriptures that support this: Heb 10:26,27; Heb 4:1; 2 Pet 3:17; 2 Pet 2: 20,21: 1 Cor 10:1-12; Rom 11:22; 1 Tim 1: 19. Also, if you think about it, all the many Gospel and Epistle passages that warn against false teachers and being misled. Why would there be a need to warn if one’s salvation cannot be lost?

Of course, there are other denominations that believe otherwise.

Pop-pop

quote:

As an infant, I was born sickly and near So my aunt strapped me to her back, walked a bunch of miles through the mountains to the nearest Catholic Church.

" Not only was I saved, but also apparently spontaneously healed of whatever the ailment."


now that's a story of faith to wake up to! what a neat Aunt! Like you Shasha, i was baptized immediately after birth as i was also sickly.. i have always been deeply grateful for this....


pop pop....i like you words here.........

As for spritz versus dunk – the real issue is not the quantity of water but the quality of heart.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:
Tuck

Is your wife saved?

Within Catholicism, our understanding, based on numerous scripture passages – a smattering of which I’ve listed below -- a person is not saved by Baptism alone. By Baptism one is introduced into the vine – but one must remain in the vine; one must remain in Christ; one must continue to run the good race, one must maintain oil in his or her lamp and maintain a clean wedding garment. Catholic belief does not accept the ‘once saved always saved’ thinking of some Protestant denominations.

As for spritz versus dunk – the real issue is not the quantity of water but the quality of heart. True circumcision is circumcision of heart – is one’s desire baptism into Christ; have you decided to follow Jesus? Are you looking to be baptized or not? Do you believe that God is such a legalistic lawyer that He would not consider your condition of heart? Would you believe that He would rather deny you the graces of Baptism because of issues with the water quantity or water salinity or water purity, or whether it is fluoridated? What is our heavenly father looking for if not our heart?

In Shasha’s case, her G’ma’s desire for Shasha (for whom she interceded, since Shasha was unable) was Baptism into Christ. She wanted Baptism for her Shasha. She climbed the mountain for just that reason. (And evidently – and not surprisingly, God wanted Baptism for Shasha as well). That’s what the priest asks of parents bringing an infant for Baptism: “What do you ask of the church?”

Of course, as Shasha grows up she will via Confirmation sacramentally and by how she continues to live her life (that is by continuing to remain in the vine as demonstrated by obedience to God’s commandments) the gifting Baptism brings will or will not be confirmed.

Looks to me like she’s got a nice supply of oil in her lamp these days!

A few relevant scriptures that support this: Heb 10:26,27; Heb 4:1; 2 Pet 3:17; 2 Pet 2: 20,21: 1 Cor 10:1-12; Rom 11:22; 1 Tim 1: 19. Also, if you think about it, all the many Gospel and Epistle passages that warn against false teachers and being misled. Why would there be a need to warn if one’s salvation cannot be lost?

Of course, there are other denominations that believe otherwise.

Pop-pop

Pop-pop you bring up a very good point, "Beware of false teachers." One of the major conflicts in Christianity is one group of Christians accusing another group of Christians of teaching falseness and both groups think that their way is the only true way.

Jesus said that "His" sheep will know their shepherd. This would seem to indicate that Jesus is the Shepherd. And He did seem to indicate that we all can have a personal relationship with God through Him. He also mentioned His two commandments, which replaced the old law, and those two commandments were based on love. So that brings up the question, "Who are Jesus' sheep?"

All Christians believe that they are Jesus' sheep, but if you do not believe as we believe then you are not a true Christian. Which of course means that you are not saved and they are. At that point they are reading the Book of Life and only Jesus can read the Book of Life. Only Jesus knows who is in it and who is not.

quote:

Originally posted by faustina:

quote:

As an infant, I was born sickly and near So my aunt strapped me to her back, walked a bunch of miles through the mountains to the nearest Catholic Church.

" Not only was I saved, but also apparently spontaneously healed of whatever the ailment."


now that's a story of faith to wake up to! what a neat Aunt! Like you Shasha, i was baptized immediately after birth as i was also sickly.. i have always been deeply grateful for this....


pop pop....i like you words here.........

As for spritz versus dunk – the real issue is not the quantity of water but the quality of heart.

Christina you are a voice in the wilderness

love,

tuck

quote:

Originally posted by Tucker:

Pop-pop you bring up a very good point, "Beware of false teachers." One of the major conflicts in Christianity is one group of Christians accusing another group of Christians of teaching falseness and both groups think that their way is the only true way.

Jesus said that "His" sheep will know their shepherd. This would seem to indicate that Jesus is the Shepherd. And He did seem to indicate that we all can have a personal relationship with God through Him. He also mentioned His two commandments, which replaced the old law, and those two commandments were based on love. So that brings up the question, "Who are Jesus' sheep?"

All Christians believe that they are Jesus' sheep, but if you do not believe as we believe then you are not a true Christian. Which of course means that you are not saved and they are. At that point they are reading the Book of Life and only Jesus can read the Book of Life. Only Jesus knows who is in it and who is not.

Tucker--This is something I've been more aware of lately, due to the internet. In my life, going to Evangelical and Lutheran churches, I have never once heard negativity towards Catholicism from a pastor or fellow Christian; (I do clearly remember as a kid that my parents thought highly of Bl. JPII) and likewise the Catholics I know accepted me as a Christian. I simply hadn't been aware that some Christians--still--had such a problem with "them", wherever Us vs. Them falls between RC/Orthodox/Protestant lines.

Seeing the animosity in print sometimes at Catholic Answers Forum has been quite a surprise.

What matters more to Christ--right doctrine, or right living? Is Christianity meant to primarily a creedal religion, or one of orthopraxis? Yes, doctrine does matter...but...I keep remembering the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus, just prior to that story, spoke of the two greatest commandments: Love God; love your neighbor as yourself. When then asked, "Who is my neighbor?", He gave us the story of the Good Samaritan. Jews considered Samaritans to be somewhat heretical, not quite right, incomplete and defective in their beliefs....all things I've seen Orthodox, RC, and Protestants say, sometimes very nastily, to each other on Catholic Answers Forum.

Doctrine is important--Yes--but...
Food for thought--Jesus did answer the question of what is most important, I think.

ps--Pop-pop---I'm heading out the door so I'm not PMing you re: our neighborhood wildlife, but I loved your fox description. And I called my dogs "wolfyotes" (3 syllables) last night, which they seemed to like even better than "coywolves".

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:

quote:

Originally posted by Ariel Jaffe:
Shasha, were you born in Albania?

Sort of. I was born in the Hoti clan of Albanians who lived on one of the mountains that border Albania and Montenegro (used to be called Yugoslavia).

Lucky for me, the RC Church decided to convert those peasant Albanian hill-billies. When you have nothing, it's easier to receive the Good News.

That's really interesting, Shasha. I looked up the Hoti on wiki.

I’ve been struggling with doctrinal correctness for as long as I’ve been a Christian and it has really exhausted me. I’m now coming to a place in which I feel that it is near impossible to know the truth as a set of dogmas or doctrines…I’m intellectual and I’m not saying we can throw doctrine out the door, but I agree with Ariel that Orthopraxis is more important.

Given that God seems to be working in the lives of so many people, some Christians and baptized as infant, others Christians and baptized as adults and some non-christians and not baptized at all…I think it is our hearts that mater and not the water.

In the book of Acts the Holy Spirit is given to the new believers. In some accounts this happens after baptism, in others it happens during baptism and in still others it happens before baptism. I feel that in baptism we indentify ourselves publicly with the spiritual reality taking place in our lives. Sometimes the two realities coincide and baptism and re-birth happen at the same time…but this is not the only way God can work.

Another issue for me comes up regarding infants. I cannot believe that unbaptized infants go to hell. I believe the kingdom of God belongs to such as these and that when they die they return to God. I believe that in a way the Fall takes place in all our lives at some point. At some time during the transition from childhood to adolescence we receive a commandment from God and then purposefully sin in some way. I don’t think children sin in this way. Paul the Apostle himself talks about a time when he was alive and that later the commandment came and he died…this implies that he was born alive and that only later did he die.

Jacques and others---I learned, after struggling very painfully over the truth claims of Judaism some years ago, to slow down and balance myself out while trying to consider truth claims of religions other than the Protestant Christianity wherein I met Christ. I have an intense drive to dig the truth as far as it can be known, in spite of personal discomfort. And also to trustingly submit myself to God, that whatever the truth is, I believe it will be good, because it is from Him...so I need never fear knowing the truth, even if it's not what I thought it was.

Yet here I am. I have learned good things from Judaism, but I'm still a Christian. And I can't ever remember a time in my fairly long time as a Christian that I haven't been appreciative of Catholicism, but I'm still a Christian who is a member of a Protestant church.

I wonder sometimes if God wants us as Christians to make good use of the time of disunity to learn the hardest lesson: love your neighbor as yourself, even when they are "them". We used to sing in my Sunday School a favorite song of everyone, from a RC priest--"They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love". I think the world will trust us more if they can see we cooperate despite our differences. A unified Church, because of past intolerance by us Christians, might scare the crap out of society, and not in a good way. The Church Militant has made some major mistakes in how it's treated those outside, and maybe we need to get the love your neighbor lesson right amongst ourselves before we can be trusted to be ecclesiastically unified. Just my thoughts...

quote:

I’ve been struggling with doctrinal correctness for as long as I’ve been a Christian and it has really exhausted me. I’m now coming to a place in which I feel that it is near impossible to know the truth as a set of dogmas or doctrines…I’m intellectual and I’m not saying we can throw doctrine out the door, but I agree with Ariel that Orthopraxis is more important.

Hi Jacques. It's been awhile, but good to see you posting here again.

Maybe you and even Ariel and others are conflating doctrines and practices, even regarding something like Baptism. The necessity of Baptism is clearly indicated from the first C. on, though, as Pop noted, it's more a Sacrament of initiation into the Church, which is the historical "conduit," as it were, for Christ's ongoing ministry on earth. The how and when of Baptism is a separate question.

Not meaning to stir up trouble, here, nor to go against the ecumenical spirit that characterizes this board, but . . . virtually all of the core doctrines and even practices of Christianity were well-established by the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The "diversity" we have now can be traced back to the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation and the disregard of Luther and the reformers for Sacred Tradition, which was, until such time, considered a complementary resource (to Scripture) for understanding Christian truth and life. The Reformers and their emphasis on "sola scriptura" opened the door to pretty much anyone with a difference of opinion on the meaning of scripture running off and forming their own church. The rest is history. But if you look back before the Reformation, you'll find centuries of consistency regarding basic Christian doctrines and practices.

Life would be a lot simpler if we were all good Roman Catholics, that is for sure. My mother's father use to say that everybody is arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Phil I think that back in the days that you are talking about priests and bishops were allowed to be married. How did that get changed?

Tuck you have written:

“Pop-pop you bring up a very good point, "Beware of false teachers." One of the major conflicts in Christianity is one group of Christians accusing another group of Christians of teaching falseness and both groups think that their way is the only true way.

All Christians believe that they are Jesus' sheep, but if you do not believe as we believe then you are not a true Christian. Which of course means that you are not saved and they are.

My mother's father used to say that everybody is arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”

*************************
Jacques you have written:

“I’ve been struggling with doctrinal correctness for as long as I’ve been a Christian and it has really exhausted me. I’m now coming to a place in which I feel that it is near impossible to know the truth as a set of dogmas or doctrines…I’m intellectual and I’m not saying we can throw doctrine out the door, but I agree with Ariel that Orthopraxis is more important”.

***********************
Ariel you have written:

“What matters more to Christ--right doctrine, or right living? Is Christianity meant to primarily a creedal religion, or one of orthopraxis? Yes, doctrine does matter...but...I keep remembering the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus, just prior to that story, spoke of the two greatest commandments: Love God; love your neighbor as yourself. When then asked, "Who is my neighbor?", He gave us the story of the Good Samaritan. Jews considered Samaritans to be somewhat heretical, not quite right, incomplete and defective in their beliefs....

Doctrine is important--Yes--but...”
***************************

Tuck,

Certainly, the differences in understanding of truth are a source of major conflict within Christendom as you point out. And certainly, as you point out and Ariel as well, accusations of false teachings between denominations accompany the existing conflict of beliefs.

Ariel is correct as well, that how we relate to each other in discussing these differences can often be wrought with animosity and uncharitable remarks. Ariel is correct in that we need always endeavor to speak the truth in love.

Certainly too, orthopraxis (correct practice) is relevant and not mere pride in doctrinal truth -- as Jacques and Ariel both agree about.

In the mix of all that however, there is often times a sentiment that taking a position in defense of truth, in exposition of truth, and in explanation of truth – is in itself unloving. That it needn’t or shouldn’t be done. This is both unfortunate and incorrect. This sentiment beats us up. Actually, THAT SENTIMENT IS UNLOVING. Why do I say that? -- Because it (that sentiment) is unfaithful to scripture.

Think about it. Scripture is a reflection of God’s love for us; scripture is a consequence of God’s love for us. God gave us revelation BECAUSE He loves us. He cares that we NOT be misled. He is truth and wants us to know Him and not some distortion of Him. Distortions of the truth of who He is wound us, and can cause us to wound each other and can enable the father of lies to wreak havoc among us.

So false teaching is not something that should NOT be talked about. The discussion of false teaching should not be set aside in the interest of some mistaken sense of harmony or as a misunderstood means for attaining unity.

Scripture didn’t do that. Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and Jude did not not address false teaching – quite the contrary. It was mentioned extensively THEN in the writing of scripture. It should not be unmentioned NOW in the reading of scripture -- nor in the orthopraxis of what scripture reveals.

It is scriptural and not unanticipated that false teaching will exist. (1)

It is scriptural that false teaching is to be guarded against. (2)

It is scriptural that false teachers should be dealt with—admonished. (3)

It is scriptural that false teachers (antichrists) would and had come from within the church itself. (4)

It is scriptural that false teachers will be plausible – plausible liars. (5)

It is scriptural that some will be surprised when the Lord says “I never knew you.” (6)

It is scriptural that Love personified warned us about false teachers misleading many and about some arguing against their loss of salvation because of their embrace of error. (7) & (6)

It is scriptural that false messiahs and prophets will appear. (8)

Scripture concerns the love of truth and the truth of love. Love of truth personified (Jesus) and the truth of Love personified (Jesus) -- the truth shown and given us by Love personified and the love of that truth that Jesus revealed and is.

Orthopraxis of error is really not ‘correct practice’ of truth. Orthopraxis of error would contradict the practice of truth.

TRUTH IS PREREQUISITE OF ORTHOPRAXIS. CHRIST HAD TO COME SO THAT ORTHOPRAXIS MIGHT OCCUR.

And, of course, Christ’s revealed truth must be guarded so that orthopraxis can be maintained. (2 Tim 3:14 & 2 Thess 2:15)

So, yes, let’s endeavor to be careful of how we speak to each other regarding differences in our understanding of truth. But let’s not neglect or fear the discussion of truth; nor imply that truth need not be clarified, is best not discussed or defended, or that truth cannot be known -- just peed about.

Certainly, the discussion of different understandings of truth between the denominations within Christendom has moved substantially. What appears now in the ‘emerging’ churches is a far cry from what we peed about in the ‘pre-modern’ churches.

In the past, it was things like spritz vs dunk, and infant Baptism vs adult, and bible versions, and praying to saints & Mary or not, and statues in churches and calling someone father, married priests etc.

These days it concerns the abomination of abortion vs abortion rights; and acceptance of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and not as sin, homosexual clergy, homosexual marriage, fornication vs living together, etc etc – much more a matter of true evil than piddle. (What’s ‘correct practice’ in those regards and how can one deny the need to clarify and defend truth? Does truth not trump orthopraxis on these issues?). These days we are pressured to tolerate sin. Actually the concept of sin has been quite lost. These days the occult is making inroads into church and civil society too. (All this is not angels on the heads of pins).

There are scriptures that state that material creation is affected by the sins of mankind. The cataclysms in nature that are associated with the end time is due to the increase of evil scripture tells us.

Methinks Malachi 2:17 speaks to our times: “You have wearied the Lord with your words, yet you say, “How have we wearied him?” By your saying, “Every evildoer is good in the sight of the Lord, And He is pleased with him”; or else “Where is the just God?” ………. reminiscent of political correctness perhaps?


Pop-pop

(1) Acts 20: 28-32; 2 Pet 2:1&2
(2) 2 Col 2:8; 2 Pet 3:17; 2 Tim 4:1-4
(3) Titus 1:10-13; Titus 3:10&11; Gal 5:10&12
(4) 1 Jn 2: 18&19: 1 Jn 4:1
(5) 1 Tim 4:1 & 2
(6)Matt 7:21-23; Lk 13:25-28;
(7) 2 Thess 2: 9-12
(8) Mk 13:22 & 23; Jude 17&18

Could it be that St. Paul, ever the sweetheart, may have shown us good and loving manners if not true orthopraxis in Gal 5:10&12? What a true and saintly mystic! (LOL.)

Just some parting fire for my female firebrand and snowball thrower. I couldn’t resist. Sorry. I know she can turn cheeks as well as heads. I count on being forgiven! I think I still have about 63 X 7 lives left. ~ 441?

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop

Certainly, the discussion of different understandings of truth between the denominations within Christendom has moved substantially. What appears now in the ‘emerging’ churches is a far cry from what we peed about in the ‘pre-modern’ churches.

In the past, it was things like spritz vs dunk, and infant Baptism vs adult, and bible versions, and praying to saints & Mary or not, and statues in churches and calling someone father, married priests etc.

These days it concerns the abomination of abortion vs abortion rights; and acceptance of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and not as sin, homosexual clergy, homosexual marriage, fornication vs living together, etc etc – much more a matter of true evil than piddle. (What’s ‘correct practice’ in those regards and how can one deny the need to clarify and defend truth? Does truth not trump orthopraxis on these issues?). These days we are pressured to tolerate sin. Actually the concept of sin has been quite lost. These days the occult is making inroads into church and civil society too. (All this is not angels on the heads of pins).

Pop-pop--

All those things in your last paragraph which I quoted, I would place under ethical orthopraxy--right action, right living: "Love your neighbor as yourself"--rather than orthodoxy.

It's certainly true that orthodoxy is important, in part because it helps us know how to act and who God is and how He acts--it's less good, IMO, when people argue about what's orthodox because of a concern for personal salvation of themselves.

What I want to emphasize here is that Evangelicals, many other Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics, all share the same concern about the things in your last paragraph in my quote. So we certainly need to cooperate in love on standing for those ways of loving our neighbor. One of my concerns, brought up especially after seeing the prejudiced attitudes of some on Catholic Answers Forum, is that in RC efforts to convert Protestants, the poor ability to dialogue--just to really even hear the other-- that I see there hinders our love and cooperation within Christendom.

It's not a simple issue, I admit.

Church history has been a particular interest of mine, probably since I was in high school--reading it from an art history perspective, a Pennsylvania resident perspective (PA and Rhode Island were founded on a belief in freedom of religious practice), and then later a Jewish perspective. And IMO, looking at the big picture, we (Christendom) are moving in the right direction. That's a complex subject--I mean, why I see history moving that way--but I hope I have reasons for my hope in that.

Ariel,

I’m lost as to where you are coming from really. Can you help me out? I don’t understand your reference frame. Truly.

What falls under orthodoxy? What falls under ethical orthopraxis? And what falls under orthopraxis? – to your way of thinking. The difference in your categories is lost on me.

I do not conceptualize in these terms, so I don’t really understand your mindset. (But want to). Actually, in truth, I hadn’t seen the word orthopraxis prior to your earlier post here and had to look it up via google.

What I do note in all the dialog we have had in public and private posts is that you really reveal little and yet somehow you do always bring up church history. I sense that you might have major heartburn regarding church history, but you never reveal anything about what irks you there. I just see the two words ‘church history’ repeatedly. Kind of like the façade of a wild west city set but nothing to see beyond its doorway.

I enjoy wrestling with you certainly, and your feisty spirit, but really, I don’t want to argue with you or beat you up in any way (as if I could). I’d like to understand you and then accept where you’re coming from -- to the best of my ability. But, mon amie, I have little idea where you’re at and/or coming from. I know we are at odds or certainly at different places (and that’s okay). All I have is a suspicion of some heartburn you might have with the RC church and a thought that it is anti-semitism based perhaps.

You can stay Protestant forever, and be my Protestant friend. I disavow my desire to receive Eucharist from your hand and ask your forgiveness for the tease.

Anyway. Free country. Respond only if you can comfortably; and by PM or public should you want.

I have callouses all over my face from your earlier snowball hits and I am better able than ever to endure more. And I have a few bottles of IPA in the fridge if worse comes to worse.

Only a virtual antagonist,
Pop-pop

Pop-pop you have very cleverly created an argument that kills discussion and nomatter what anybody says you are always right and they are always wrong, if they disagree with you. Added to this you consider discussion an act of violence.

Yes being too wishy washy about things is not the answer, at the same time "as you judge so shall you be judged."

So Pop-pop, where in the Christian Bible does it say that one can be prayed out of purgatory? Just for fun.

Pop-pop

I looked up Galatians 5:10+12 after being here this morning, and thought--??? Do you want to explain why you thought that would apply to me? Speak your mind.

No, I don't feel I have heartburn with the RCC, nor any Christian church. I do, in all frankness, have some wariness towards the RCC. It didn't come from being raised in a Protestant church. As I said in an earlier post, I quite honestly have been exposed to no anti-Catholic sentiment through my parents or various Protestant churches I've been in, nor through Christian media that I hear. I can believe Catholics when they say they have--I just haven't had that misfortune myself.

What wariness I do have towards the thought of having to convert to being RC came firstly from studying art history, as you know I'm a sculptor. In high school, researching sculptors such as Michelangelo, I was kind of appalled to read about the succession of popes who were anything but Christian. I was just basically shocked and baffled--I didn't know what to think. I wasn't reading sensationalist anti-Catholic writing, but standard art history from a variety of sources. So, when I became a Christian, I did have some admiration for the reformers who stood up to the corruption.

Anyway, that is part #1 of how I came to feel a mixture of both appreciation and circumspection towards the thought of "subjection to the Pontiff of Rome." More to follow...

Well, I lost a post to cyber gremlins, Pop-pop, because I didn't put it on MS Works, and now I have to get back to work.

I will say more later...but first I will say this now. When I spoke before about church history in relation to converting to Catholicism, Phil used the analogy that my attitude was like trying to drive a car while looking backward. In a PM you said you agreed with that analogy. Maybe it would be that way for you. But for me, I'm not even in that car. So yes, I'm certainly going to look at where it's been and what kind of track record unity under the pope of Rome has produced...what is its fruit, to mix a metaphor...instead of just jumping in the car.

History creates a reality where we do not make the same mistakes.

Pop-pop, has the RC ever made any mistakes? Has any Christian organization ever made any mistakes?

They all in their own mind represent God and Jesus Christ. Pop-pop? Others?

Pop-pop has created a reality relative to history. Phil says that the past should be forgotten, which I am inclined to agree with. BUT our beloved Pop-pop has created the challenge. And Pop-pop has medicine that makes Pop-pop healable when it comes to that challenge. This adds up to interesting.

i don't know.. maybe i am odd, but i do not see much difference within religious organizations.. i suppose that is pretty clear from my posts...

i love the catholic mass.. i also love the divine Liturgy.. and Protestant churches.. wherever there is heart felt worship....

for me and the tendencies within my personality, it is best for me to go to the Catholic church.or an Eastern Orthodox church but i do not see Protestant churches as inferior in any way...equally, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ..

the one true church i sincerely believe lives within the hearts of all men who Love God and live for Him and His Divine purposes......

it is not God who creates the divisions within His Body.. it is.. man.