Anti-Semitism In France!

[Ron Cusano 0]

He was, but His primary reason for coming and His primary message was SALVATION! Anything else was secondary. Without salvation, social issues mean nothing.

Huh, I think Jesus was quite concerned with social issues as well. His stance on them, some might call liberal.

[Ron Cusano 0]

That was intended as only none small area where the Catholic church was in error in this area. All the other areas of "Works" to obtain salvation are very much valid.

Ron, this is such a tired old horse you insist on whipping.

First of all, an indulgence cannot purchase the pardon of a soul, nor can it secure salvation. Pope Pius V, in 1567, forbid the attachment of an indulgence to any financial act. And it remains so today. So you were not taught as a child that money could ransom a soul from Purgatory.

Secondly, the doctrine of indulgences (supported, by the way, in scripture, if one reads 2 Maccabees) was instrumental in Luther's 95 theses. In 1517 Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica. This was a very bad idea on the part of Leo X and did, indeed, seem like the church was selling salvation. It was not any worse, however, than Jim Baker's defrauding of his flock by over-selling shares in his Heritage USA theme park. It was no more ill-advised than Oral Roberts ridiculous plea for eight million dollars or God would call him home. Men are mortals and they sometimes do wrong things. If that were an indictment of the church, then there would be no churches left.

[Ron Cusano 0]

That was intended as only none small area where the Catholic church was in error in this area. All the other areas of "Works" to obtain salvation are very much valid.

Your examples or Oral Roberts and Jim Baker are also valid, but their mistakes were not doctronial mistakes about salvation that could lead men to hell. They were wrong, wrong, wrong, but false teaching abvout salvation is far more grevious.

Ron, this is such a tired old horse you insist on whipping.

First of all, an indulgence cannot purchase the pardon of a soul, nor can it secure salvation. Pope Pius V, in 1567, forbid the attachment of an indulgence to any financial act. And it remains so today. So you were not taught as a child that money could ransom a soul from Purgatory.

Secondly, the doctrine of indulgences (supported, by the way, in scripture, if one reads 2 Maccabees) was instrumental in Luther's 95 theses. In 1517 Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica. This was a very bad idea on the part of Leo X and did, indeed, seem like the church was selling salvation. It was not any worse, however, than Jim Baker's defrauding of his flock by over-selling shares in his Heritage USA theme park. It was no more ill-advised than Oral Roberts ridiculous plea for eight million dollars or God would call him home. Men are mortals and they sometimes do wrong things. If that were an indictment of the church, then there would be no churches left.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I do apoligize for my typos, spelling, etc. and I can accept that it can be a problem. While I am a writer, I do unfortunately have to rely on Spell Check a lot, which we don't have here. A lot of the errors are typos because of arthritus and also being rushed at times, and again I apoligize. I hagve never claimed to be perfect, and indeed I am not!

Ron, I know you get mightly offended when anyone mentions your misspelled words (no one seems to mention some of your major grammatical errors), but we sincerely want to read what you have to say. It is sometimes very difficult to wade through one of your posts, possibly because you don't have a lot of time and can't re-read what you've typed before you post it. But we really aren't out to get you. It is awfully hard to be sure that we understand what you are saying. It shouldn't be surprising that we need a clarafication from time to time. Please bear with us.

[BJean 16]

Thanks very much for your response, but I honestly wasn't asking you to apologize or feel bad for typos or misspellings. We all make those kinds of mistakes. I just sensed that you felt that people were nit-picking and being rude to you. I don't think that the two just previous instances of posters who asked for clarification were intending anything but to understand what you were wanting to say.

I feel that I have a confession of my own to make to you Ron. I have been very put off and angry and frankly disgusted by some of the things you've posted here. I have known so many arrogant and pompous people in my lifetime who use religion to feel superior to others and who use the Bible to point out the errors of other men's ways. They used to make me feel bad about my beliefs and about the path I've taken on my spiritual Quest. Now they upset me because I remember how they used to be able to make me feel. I don't want others to have the same bad feelings about some Christians that I have felt.

But I have become emotional and I have behaved in a very unattractive way and I know that Jesus would not embrace some of the things I've said, even though they were said because I thought that He would be offended by things that you said. Two wrongs don't make a right. Besides, I believe that you are sincere in your words. Intellectually I do not agree with you, or most of the things that you say and the way you come back at people and avoid taking responsibility for the things that YOU say (not the Bible), but it is not for me to correct you. If anyone is driven away from the Bible or God because of you, I know that it is for Jesus and God to fix. Not me. So I apologize for my inappropriate comments to you. Although I said earlier that I would, I didn't stick to my word and keep quiet unless I had something good to say. But from here on out, I make a vow to do that. Not out of respect for you personally Ron, but out of respect for another of God's somewhat fragmented children.

[wavydaby 1]

Ok, Im sorta back. I need to go back and read over some posts, but I have a question.

It looks to me that the Strong Concordance was written, in essence backwards.

By this I mean, Strong took the KJV of the bible and justified it with defintion. Not creating a newly translated bible.

Everywhere I look, its always, Strong's Concordance of the KJV.

And still the concordance gives a varity of "possible words that can be used" in places.

Its like I am looking at a thesaurus, not a literal transalation.

I could do this with ALL versions of the bible and still fit in to Strong's definitions of what the words are.

[missy4gordon 0]

Hi Ron,

I just wanted to say that I have been following this thread quietly. I just want you to know that I do not find you to be arrogant, pompous, or whatever others may have called you. I find you to be extremely passionate, and you have courage of conviction, which is inspiring. Even though everything you have put out here has been, well let's face it, attacked, you continue to answer question after question after question. After reading all these pages, I wonder if they are really after your answers or just wanting to see you flounder or mis-speak, where they will leap out and then pounce on you. Who knows, but it is clear to me that they have not been entirely civil themselves.

I find myself agreeing with your interpretation, and I also agree about the bible to be taken litterally unless context indicates otherwise. Some people can't understand this, and I can't explain it but I do believe it to be true. Anyway, I'm probably going to get flamed for what I've said.

I think your intentions are noble, but it seems to be falling on deaf ears, you can lead a horse to Water, but you can't make 'em drink!!

[BJean 16]

missy4gordon: If you read closely I think you'd have to agree that there have been some really worthwhile exchanges here that haven't been anything but cordial. Yes, some of us have gotten inflammatory with our remarks, but frankly if some of Ron's attacking remarks haven't registered as negative and nasty to you, it might be because you agree with those attacking remarks and that's why you don't find THEM distasteful. To each his own.

But the best thing about this thread is that many of us have learned a whole lot. This thread has caused many of us to do some serious researching, thinking and Bible reading. If everyone agreed with everything that everyone else posted, I don't think that would have happened. Perhaps that is why Ron (giving him the benefit of the doubt) uses the methods that he does - they are emotion provoking and thought provoking. Questioning, discussing, reasoning and debate can all be wonderful learning tools. That's up to all of us who read and post on this thread, because afterall as you said, you can lead a horse to water...

As unhappy as I have been with some of the posts here (from all sides), I am very happy with the things I've learned from others and some of the things that I have learned about myself.

[lisah25 3]

He was, but His primary reason for coming and His primary message was SALVATION! Anything else was secondary. Without salvation, social issues mean nothing.

True enough. But once one has accepted Jesus, one is saved, correct? So from that point on, it's about other things. How we live. What we do with what we have been given.

[lisah25 3]

I do apoligize for my typos, spelling, etc. and I can accept that it can be a problem. While I am a writer, I do unfortunately have to rely on Spell Check a lot, which we don't have here. A lot of the errors are typos because of arthritus and also being rushed at times, and again I apoligize. I hagve never claimed to be perfect, and indeed I am not!

There is actually a spell check, if you look in the upper right corner, next to where you type in a message, above the smilies, there is an icon that has "ABC" and a checkmark. I haven't used it in a while, but I seem to remember it working.

[missy4gordon 0]

missy4gordon: If you read closely I think you'd have to agree that there have been some really worthwhile exchanges here that haven't been anything but cordial. Yes, some of us have gotten inflammatory with our remarks, but frankly if some of Ron's attacking remarks haven't registered as negative and nasty to you, it might be because you agree with those attacking remarks and that's why you don't find THEM distasteful. To each his own.

I did read closely and I agree, there was much that was cordial, you're right. I also agree with your second remark about how I don't find his remarks antagonistic largely because I agree with him, and the same could be said on your side of the coin, right? You do find some of them negative and nasty because you disagree. Perhaps the way we perceive something depends on our beliefs? I don't know, I just wanted to show some support for him as he seemed ganged up on.

Nobody will ever agree on everything, that is a given, but can't we all just get along??!! LOL

Peace Out!!!

[anonemouse 1]

I did read closely and I agree, there was much that was cordial, you're right. I also agree with your second remark about how I don't find his remarks antagonistic largely because I agree with him, and the same could be said on your side of the coin, right? You do find some of them negative and nasty because you disagree. Perhaps the way we perceive something depends on our beliefs? I don't know, I just wanted to show some support for him as he seemed ganged up on.

That's definitely true, but some statements should be seen as mean, vicious attacks, even if we do think that they're right on. Sometimes, an unfounded attack is an unfounded attack, and shouldn't be tolerated. I'll be among the first to admit that the majority of the people on both sides that are heavily involved in this thread have made some attacks that really weren't necessary. Everyone involved in this thread is very passionate about the topic, and passionate people can easily become offensive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

I'll admit that for a while, I was consciously baiting Ron. That doesn't mean I didn't believe every word I said, but I was so offended by his views that I took every word he said very personally. It became my misssion to piss him off and make him lose his cool and show everyone the wolf I thought was hiding under the sheep's clothing of Christianity. After cooling off for a while, I have come to the conclusion that Ron is probably a pretty nice guy, as a whole. Do I agree with his views? No. Will we ever see eye to eye on most issues? Heck, no. Do I think we can discuss issues in a relatively civil manner? I think so, in most cases.

[BJean 16]

Missy4gordon: I definitely agree with you - I felt that he was being antagonistic and pompous because not only did I find his verbage distasteful, but I also disagreed with some of the claims he made about Christianity and Biblical beliefs.

I do not take the Bible literally. I cannot for the life of me understand how a good person, Christian or not, can decide for everyone that the Bible is to be interpreted strictly literally on the one hand, but then add the words "in context" on the other. Everything is generally interpreted in the context of their usage, but the Bible was written such a long, long time ago and has gone through so many hands, been interpreted so by so many, to believe that it is only to be taken as the literal word of God is naive and somewhat ignorant. It's impossible. Belief is what is needed and relied upon by those who accept the Bible as the word of God. That is, to my thinking, how God intended it.

As far as I'm concerned, it is easy for us to "just get along" if we allow each other to believe as we believe, without recriminations and without certain Christians telling us that we are patently wrong to believe as we do.

Some say that they can prove that the Bible is literal, but they do not actually go about proving it in fact. There is no way to prove that God wrote the Bible. There just is not. We can believe that God wrote the Bible, but we cannot prove it. We can believe that God speaks to us, but we cannot prove it. We can say that we are good people, but our actions and our words prove it one way or another.

[anonemouse 1]

We can say that we are good people, but our actions and our words prove it one way or another.

Very true. My parents, who are Christians, by the way, say that a Christian is proven by his actions, not by what he professes. In other words, a person can swear up and down that he or she is a Christian and that they are following the word of God, but at the end of the day, what really matters are the actions they are taking.

I think my aunt and uncle are perfect examples of people who say they are Christian but don't really walk the walk. I think I mentioned them earlier in the thread, but I am not sure. They are devout Southern Baptists and help run a homeless shelter in Nashville. Instead of helping every person who comes to them for help, they only help the Christians and those who are willing to sacrifice their beliefs for a night in the shelter or a plate of food (anyone staying in the shelter must attend services). To me, that isn't what true Christianity should be about. True Christianity should be helping the less fortunate, period. Not putting demands and conditions on that help.

[BJean 16]

laurend: I agree with you. Doing good for goodness' sake is far more admirable than doing good to accomplish one of our own personal goals. Whether it is a personal goal to bring people to the Bible or whether it is because of a personal goal of writing off the contribution on our taxes. One could even do good acts to impress others. Those are all selfish reasons for doing good deeds.

The deeds can still be beneficial, but people should own up to their motives and should realize that they are being selfish and self-serving. Hmmm, the word, hypocritical comes to mind when I think of some of the Southern Baptists who have been near and dear to me in the past. I hate to say that, but it is too true and it was a huge lesson to me to have lived with, loved and been loved by someone who is truly a hypocrite.