The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Tarsonis]

How do Catholics defend the doctrine that people can gain Eternal Salvation by obeying their conscience in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#847) when Christ said he was the only way to God? The conscience is programmable, does not the woman who sacrifices her baby in India have a clear conscience on the matter? I'm rather certain she does since she was taught it from birth.

Context. Context. Context.
First the preceding two verses:

“845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body....”

Now 847:
“This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church....”

847 is for basically those who are born, live, and die without ever hearing the name Jesus Christ.


As for the conscience, keep reading:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”


As St. Paul says, even the Gentiles do by instinct what the law commands. A woman sacrificing her child in India is not following that moral instinct.

[Stonok]

847 is for basically those who are born, live, and die without ever hearing the name Jesus Christ.

Even then it seems lofty in comparison to Christ's plain statement that none go to the Father but through Him. How does someone arrive at that conclusion apart from feeble human reasoning in order to appeal to Atheists who criticize the church on the basis of exclusivity

[Tarsonis]

847 is for basically those who are born, live, and die without ever hearing the name Jesus Christ.

Even then it seems lofty in comparison to Christ's plain statement that none go to the Father but through Him. How does someone arrive at that conclusion apart from feeble human reasoning in order to appeal to Atheists who criticize the church on the basis of exclusivity

Because while God is strict, He’s also just. As it says “through no fault of their own.”’ A person who is born in say the Sentilese people, and never hears the Gospel their entire life, never has the chance to accept salvation. It would be unjust to condemn them to hellfire because they never had the opportunity to accept Christ. God is not a sadist.


Also I should point out that even in this manner they still are going to the father through Christ, just not as overtly as the ordinary means.

[Stonok]

Because while God is strict, He’s also just. As it says “through no fault of their own.”’ A person who is born in say the Sentilese people, and never hears the Gospel their entire life, never has the chance to accept salvation. It would be unjust to condemn them to hellfire because they never had the opportunity to accept Christ. God is not a sadist.

But they are born in Adam's original sin just like those born inside the regions where they can hear the gospel. While God will no doubt remember their obedience to moral instinct as he did Cornelius the Centurion, it's not a given that they gain salvation. At least from my understanding, which is limited of course.

[Tarsonis]

But they are born in Adam's original sin just like those born inside the regions where they can hear the gospel. While God will no doubt remember their obedience to moral instinct as he did Cornelius the Centurion, it's not a given that they gain salvation. At least from my understanding, which is limited of course.

It’s not a given that anyone gains salvation. And 847 says “may achieve” not “will achieve”

[Stonok]

But they are born in Adam's original sin just like those born inside the regions where they can hear the gospel. While God will no doubt remember their obedience to moral instinct as he did Cornelius the Centurion, it's not a given that they gain salvation. At least from my understanding, which is limited of course.

It’s not a given that anyone gains salvation.

There are clear instructions for how people may gain salvation, and if they follow it according to true doctrine and God remains true to his word they will gain it.

Side note: Check us out having an actual discussion about issues within Christendom instead of only being able to argue with antitheists!

[Tarsonis]

It’s not a given that anyone gains salvation.

There are clear instructions for how people may gain salvation, and if they follow it according to true doctrine and God remains true to his word they will gain it.

Yes. But it also states that many will fall away, and many will falsely walk the path. We have hope for salvation, but that’s a different statement than salvation is guaranteed.

Catholic doctrine emphasizes the necessity of Christian living, not just the VBS ABC’s

[Stonok]

There are clear instructions for how people may gain salvation, and if they follow it according to true doctrine and God remains true to his word they will gain it.

Yes. But it also states that many will fall away, and many will falsely walk the path. We have hope for salvation, but that’s a different statement than salvation is guaranteed.

Well presuming a person walks the path sincerely and steadfast, their salvation is more or less secure isn't it?

[Lost Memories]

How do Catholics defend the doctrine that people can gain Eternal Salvation by obeying their conscience in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#847) when Christ said he was the only way to God? The conscience is programmable, does not the woman who sacrifices her baby in India have a clear conscience on the matter? I'm rather certain she does since she was taught it from birth.

Because God inspires the consciences.
Someone who knew but refused the word surely wasn't listening to their conscience.
Someone who didn't knew about the word may have lived by following their conscience. And still hypothetically, if they had come in contact with the word they would have accepted it.

Conscience in this matter isn't the same as mortal and earthly conscience, but divinely inspired conscience.

[Tarsonis]

Yes. But it also states that many will fall away, and many will falsely walk the path. We have hope for salvation, but that’s a different statement than salvation is guaranteed.

Well presuming a person walks the path sincerely and steadfast, their salvation is more or less secure isn't it?

We hope. Only God can say.

Should point out here that only the Saints are those we believe for sure have made it to heaven.

[Kowani]

...That’s...quite tautological of you. I feel like I should ask if the Church is not just a body of people, what is it? (And don’t say a building.) I mean, all those martyrs who died when Christianity was just starting out, yeah, no, they did jack shit because the Church was divinely made. God, apart from being present in Jesus did literally nothing to build the Church afterwards. Yeah, he kickstarted it, but to claim that humans did absolutely nothing to build it is both disingenuous and well, wrong. Plus, all those other denominations of Christianity, y’know, the 4,200, plus all the nondenominational people? Yeah, they totally left the Christian community and the way of life taught by Jesus. And then we get to places like ISIS territory, where being a Christian is literally enough to get you killed, and in those kinds of cases, I think leaving the church is quite justified.

Yes, I use repetition a lot to get my point across and make it clear. The Church, as I apparently repeated too much but you somehow still don't understand, is not just a group of people like any other institution. The Church is the communion of Christians guided by the Holy Spirit. It is not human, but human and divine. Christ inspired the martyrs, who died for the Word. The martyrs were sustained by the Holy Spirit and they in turn built the early Church. "Jesus did literally nothing" is about as backwards and asinine an analysis as one could make. Christ did not do nothing, He did everything. Who taught the Apostles of the Church? Who sustained the martyrs and Christians through persecution? Who inspired the missionaries to spread Christianity? God, and God alone. Perhaps you are continuously trapped in your dead, materialistic view of everything, but everything people within the Church have done to do the work of Christ has been done with the express support of God.

I'm not sure why you claim that I am being disingenuous when you tramp into the CDT, rudely spout falsehoods and dodge from one question to the next, and then are surprised when we give a Christian answer. Mentioning the other denominations does virtually nothing to detract from my argument, since describing the number of schismatics or apostates does absolutely nothing to justify why someone should be in schism or apostatize. The deranged ISIS comment is the martyr "argument" rehashed. Thankfully, the Christians that were under persecution held to their faith, even to the point of death. They saw no reason to leave the faith, since God sustained them. In other words, the people that actually went through persecution find your "justification" to be unsatisfactory.

I missed a comma in my original comment, which seems to have created a misunderstanding. My fault, so apologies. It should have been “God, apart from being in Jesus, did literally nothing to build the Church. My point was that God did not come down from the heavens and do anything to build the Church, and as for you calling the Apostles martyrs, well, we only have evidence that 3 of them were actually martyrs: Peter, Paul, and James, son of Zebedee. Now, there most certainly were other martyrs. Rome was not forgiving of Christianity. But that doesn’t mean that Christianity is unique. There have been many, many cases in other religions if people dying for their faith. And the missionaries...”they brought the word of God” They also brought pain, death and suffering. Part of that was unintentional (Diseases), but not every missionary was exactly saintly. And yeah, you have people like Bartolomé De las Casas, a great man, let’s be honest, but then you also have people like Cardinal Cisneros, a...not so great man. As for the other denominations, it was actually me trying to both point out that there is no Universal Christian Church, as well as pointing out that schisms in the Church can be quite justified. As for ISIS, yeah, some Christians held to their faith. Others didn’t. It’s quite a mixed bag. Don’t go making blanket statements about this sort of thing.

What did I miss...oh right! The “dead, materialistic worldview.” I have quite a few things to explain here, don’t I. Yeah, I don’t believe that we live on after we die. That gives me the ability to focus on the material world and what people go through now instead of a “pie in the sky” doctrine that brings comfort for something it can’t prove. I mean, once someone’s dead, that’s it. Nobody is gonna come back down from heaven to say, “oh yeah no, it’s great up there.” And since the image of heaven presented is so appealing, that’s all it has to do: appear appealing. The Church technically, only has to make more people Christian, but the best way to do that is to improve quality of life. And since the Church has its seat of power in secular Europe, it has scientific and medical advantages over pretty much everywhere else. I feel I should put in at this juncture that Christianity spread those beliefs of its through blood and violence. Yeah, towards the beginning it was the persecuted, and that wasn’t right. However, there is something about becoming the persecutor that seems ironic to me, but seemed to escape most of the medieval and modern church. (Modern not meaning today, but everything between medieval times and the enlightenment.) Some of the beliefs brought by Christianity were undoubtedly good. Others...not so much. Same with its effects. Yes, many scientific advances were brought about directly through the Church. You know what else though? Whenever those advances clashed with dogma, heresy trials began. Hell, the only reason Copernicus managed to get his book published was by June claiming that it was just a mathematical model and not indicative of reality. As a side note, I am not merely materialistic. I don’t believe in God, the Holy Spirit, or heaven. Here are some things I do believe in: Empathey, kindness, curiosity, Ingenuity, creativity, Rights, morality, blah blah blah. Note that all of these values can be existent without Christianity. (The morals question is another debate, but I’ll just leave this question: Who is more moral, he who does good of his own free will, or he who does good because he is told too? The effect is the same, but the intent is not.)

[Tarsonis]

Yes, I use repetition a lot to get my point across and make it clear. The Church, as I apparently repeated too much but you somehow still don't understand, is not just a group of people like any other institution. The Church is the communion of Christians guided by the Holy Spirit. It is not human, but human and divine. Christ inspired the martyrs, who died for the Word. The martyrs were sustained by the Holy Spirit and they in turn built the early Church. "Jesus did literally nothing" is about as backwards and asinine an analysis as one could make. Christ did not do nothing, He did everything. Who taught the Apostles of the Church? Who sustained the martyrs and Christians through persecution? Who inspired the missionaries to spread Christianity? God, and God alone. Perhaps you are continuously trapped in your dead, materialistic view of everything, but everything people within the Church have done to do the work of Christ has been done with the express support of God.

I'm not sure why you claim that I am being disingenuous when you tramp into the CDT, rudely spout falsehoods and dodge from one question to the next, and then are surprised when we give a Christian answer. Mentioning the other denominations does virtually nothing to detract from my argument, since describing the number of schismatics or apostates does absolutely nothing to justify why someone should be in schism or apostatize. The deranged ISIS comment is the martyr "argument" rehashed. Thankfully, the Christians that were under persecution held to their faith, even to the point of death. They saw no reason to leave the faith, since God sustained them. In other words, the people that actually went through persecution find your "justification" to be unsatisfactory.

I missed a comma in my original comment, which seems to have created a misunderstanding. My fault, so apologies. It should have been “God, apart from being in Jesus, did literally nothing to build the Church. My point was that God did not come down from the heavens and do anything to build the Church, and as for you calling the Apostles martyrs, well, we only have evidence that 3 of them were actually martyrs: Peter, Paul, and James, son of Zebedee. Now, there most certainly were other martyrs. Rome was not forgiving of Christianity. But that doesn’t mean that Christianity is unique. There have been many, many cases in other religions if people dying for their faith. And the missionaries...”they brought the word of God” They also brought pain, death and suffering. Part of that was unintentional (Diseases), but not every missionary was exactly saintly. And yeah, you have people like Bartolomé De las Casas, a great man, let’s be honest, but then you also have people like Cardinal Cisneros, a...not so great man. As for the other denominations, it was actually me trying to both point out that there is no Universal Christian Church, as well as pointing out that schisms in the Church can be quite justified. As for ISIS, yeah, some Christians held to their faith. Others didn’t. It’s quite a mixed bag. Don’t go making blanket statements about this sort of thing.

What did I miss...oh right! The “dead, materialistic worldview.” I have quite a few things to explain here, don’t I. Yeah, I don’t believe that we live on after we die. That gives me the ability to focus on the material world and what people go through now instead of a “pie in the sky” doctrine that brings comfort for something it can’t prove. I mean, once someone’s dead, that’s it. Nobody is gonna come back down from heaven to say, “oh yeah no, it’s great up there.” And since the image of heaven presented is so appealing, that’s all it has to do: appear appealing. The Church technically, only has to make more people Christian, but the best way to do that is to improve quality of life. And since the Church has its seat of power in secular Europe, it has scientific and medical advantages over pretty much everywhere else. I feel I should put in at this juncture that Christianity spread those beliefs of its through blood and violence. Yeah, towards the beginning it was the persecuted, and that wasn’t right. However, there is something about becoming the persecutor that seems ironic to me, but seemed to escape most of the medieval and modern church. (Modern not meaning today, but everything between medieval times and the enlightenment.) Some of the beliefs brought by Christianity were undoubtedly good. Others...not so much. Same with its effects. Yes, many scientific advances were brought about directly through the Church. You know what else though? Whenever those advances clashed with dogma, heresy trials began. Hell, the only reason Copernicus managed to get his book published was by June claiming that it was just a mathematical model and not indicative of reality. As a side note, I am not merely materialistic. I don’t believe in God, the Holy Spirit, or heaven. Here are some things I do believe in: Empathey, kindness, curiosity, Ingenuity, creativity, Rights, morality, blah blah blah. Note that all of these values can be existent without Christianity. (The morals question is another debate, but I’ll just leave this question: Who is more moral, he who does good of his own free will, or he who does good because he is told too? The effect is the same, but the intent is not.)

Well A. Christ being God incarnate founded the Church, and also did the whole dying for out sins part which without there wouldn't be a Church to begin with, so in that regard God did the material work of building the Church.
B. While yes the Church was built by men and women, to say God was uninvolved would also be wrong. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and all the miracles that really helped on a PR front, the God has been involved in building the Church every step of the way.

[Kowani]

I missed a comma in my original comment, which seems to have created a misunderstanding. My fault, so apologies. It should have been “God, apart from being in Jesus, did literally nothing to build the Church. My point was that God did not come down from the heavens and do anything to build the Church, and as for you calling the Apostles martyrs, well, we only have evidence that 3 of them were actually martyrs: Peter, Paul, and James, son of Zebedee. Now, there most certainly were other martyrs. Rome was not forgiving of Christianity. But that doesn’t mean that Christianity is unique. There have been many, many cases in other religions if people dying for their faith. And the missionaries...”they brought the word of God” They also brought pain, death and suffering. Part of that was unintentional (Diseases), but not every missionary was exactly saintly. And yeah, you have people like Bartolomé De las Casas, a great man, let’s be honest, but then you also have people like Cardinal Cisneros, a...not so great man. As for the other denominations, it was actually me trying to both point out that there is no Universal Christian Church, as well as pointing out that schisms in the Church can be quite justified. As for ISIS, yeah, some Christians held to their faith. Others didn’t. It’s quite a mixed bag. Don’t go making blanket statements about this sort of thing.

What did I miss...oh right! The “dead, materialistic worldview.” I have quite a few things to explain here, don’t I. Yeah, I don’t believe that we live on after we die. That gives me the ability to focus on the material world and what people go through now instead of a “pie in the sky” doctrine that brings comfort for something it can’t prove. I mean, once someone’s dead, that’s it. Nobody is gonna come back down from heaven to say, “oh yeah no, it’s great up there.” And since the image of heaven presented is so appealing, that’s all it has to do: appear appealing. The Church technically, only has to make more people Christian, but the best way to do that is to improve quality of life. And since the Church has its seat of power in secular Europe, it has scientific and medical advantages over pretty much everywhere else. I feel I should put in at this juncture that Christianity spread those beliefs of its through blood and violence. Yeah, towards the beginning it was the persecuted, and that wasn’t right. However, there is something about becoming the persecutor that seems ironic to me, but seemed to escape most of the medieval and modern church. (Modern not meaning today, but everything between medieval times and the enlightenment.) Some of the beliefs brought by Christianity were undoubtedly good. Others...not so much. Same with its effects. Yes, many scientific advances were brought about directly through the Church. You know what else though? Whenever those advances clashed with dogma, heresy trials began. Hell, the only reason Copernicus managed to get his book published was by June claiming that it was just a mathematical model and not indicative of reality. As a side note, I am not merely materialistic. I don’t believe in God, the Holy Spirit, or heaven. Here are some things I do believe in: Empathey, kindness, curiosity, Ingenuity, creativity, Rights, morality, blah blah blah. Note that all of these values can be existent without Christianity. (The morals question is another debate, but I’ll just leave this question: Who is more moral, he who does good of his own free will, or he who does good because he is told too? The effect is the same, but the intent is not.)

Well A. Christ being God incarnate founded the Church, and also did the whole dying for out sins part which without there wouldn't be a Church to begin with, so in that regard God did the material work of building the Church.
B. While yes the Church was built by men and women, to say God was uninvolved would also be wrong. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and all the miracles that really helped on a PR front, the God has been involved in building the Church every step of the way.

Let me reword the statement. Imagine the Church as a building. God places the first couple of bricks. Those are extremely important bricks, mind you. Men and women build everything else. Saying “God alone built the Church” is where my objection is, since it devalues the actual hard work and sacrifice that went into its construction.

I could make a snarky comment here, but I don’t feel like arguing 3 different positions at once.

[Tarsonis]

Well A. Christ being God incarnate founded the Church, and also did the whole dying for out sins part which without there wouldn't be a Church to begin with, so in that regard God did the material work of building the Church.
B. While yes the Church was built by men and women, to say God was uninvolved would also be wrong. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and all the miracles that really helped on a PR front, the God has been involved in building the Church every step of the way.

Let me reword the statement. Imagine the Church as a building. God places the first couple of bricks. Those are extremely important bricks, mind you. Men and women build everything else. Saying “God alone built the Church” is where my objection is, since it devalues the actual hard work and sacrifice that went into its construction.

I could make a snarky comment here, but I don’t feel like arguing 3 different positions at once.

Ah, okay. Well from that point of view I absolutely agree. The fact that Protestants are so dismissive of the human element of the Church is one of the reasons I became Catholic

[Stonok]

Should point out here that only the Saints are those we believe for sure have made it to heaven.

A list that is also questionable, what with the likes of Saint Thomas More in it, a man who was at the very least indirectly responsible for the cruel punishment, executions, and public shaming of people for questioning the Roman church, and in the case of Tyndale simply because he translated certain Greek words into things that didn't 100% reflect the Catholic vocabulary.

[Tarsonis]

Should point out here that only the Saints are those we believe for sure have made it to heaven.

A list that is also questionable, what with the likes of Saint Thomas More in it, a man who was at the very least indirectly responsible for the cruel punishment, executions, and public shaming of people for questioning the Roman church, and in the case of Tyndale simply because he translated certain Greek words into things that didn't 100% reflect the Catholic vocabulary.

And he was also a Martyr of the Church, and lets not forget the violence the Church of England employed against Catholics.

Nobody said the Saints were perfect (with the exception of St. Mary. )

[Northern Davincia]

What did I miss...oh right! The “dead, materialistic worldview.” I have quite a few things to explain here, don’t I. Yeah, I don’t believe that we live on after we die. That gives me the ability to focus on the material world and what people go through now instead of a “pie in the sky” doctrine that brings comfort for something it can’t prove. I mean, once someone’s dead, that’s it. Nobody is gonna come back down from heaven to say, “oh yeah no, it’s great up there.” And since the image of heaven presented is so appealing, that’s all it has to do: appear appealing. The Church technically, only has to make more people Christian, but the best way to do that is to improve quality of life. And since the Church has its seat of power in secular Europe, it has scientific and medical advantages over pretty much everywhere else. I feel I should put in at this juncture that Christianity spread those beliefs of its through blood and violence. Yeah, towards the beginning it was the persecuted, and that wasn’t right. However, there is something about becoming the persecutor that seems ironic to me, but seemed to escape most of the medieval and modern church. (Modern not meaning today, but everything between medieval times and the enlightenment.) Some of the beliefs brought by Christianity were undoubtedly good. Others...not so much. Same with its effects. Yes, many scientific advances were brought about directly through the Church. You know what else though? Whenever those advances clashed with dogma, heresy trials began. Hell, the only reason Copernicus managed to get his book published was by June claiming that it was just a mathematical model and not indicative of reality. As a side note, I am not merely materialistic. I don’t believe in God, the Holy Spirit, or heaven. Here are some things I do believe in: Empathey, kindness, curiosity, Ingenuity, creativity, Rights, morality, blah blah blah. Note that all of these values can be existent without Christianity. (The morals question is another debate, but I’ll just leave this question: Who is more moral, he who does good of his own free will, or he who does good because he is told too? The effect is the same, but the intent is not.)

You don't believe in Heaven because it can't be proven, yet where can we find evidence for oblivion?
Tell me, would your current moral beliefs have developed independently of a Christian society? I can assure you, moral Christians are acting upon their free will.

[Stonok]

I wonder if Kowani and Minecraft are alts, honestly. They both showed up in the Islamic Discussion Thread as well, and both disappeared from there, in favor of picking on the CDT.

All I know is I'm pretty sure this isn't what either thread is for.

[Kowani]

I wonder if Kowani and Minecraft are alts, honestly. They both showed up in the Islamic Discussion Thread as well, and both disappeared from there, in favor of picking on the CDT.

All I know is I'm pretty sure this isn't what either thread is for.

Trust me, we’re not. I just like lurking on other threads until I have something to say.

[Kowani]

What did I miss...oh right! The “dead, materialistic worldview.” I have quite a few things to explain here, don’t I. Yeah, I don’t believe that we live on after we die. That gives me the ability to focus on the material world and what people go through now instead of a “pie in the sky” doctrine that brings comfort for something it can’t prove. I mean, once someone’s dead, that’s it. Nobody is gonna come back down from heaven to say, “oh yeah no, it’s great up there.” And since the image of heaven presented is so appealing, that’s all it has to do: appear appealing. The Church technically, only has to make more people Christian, but the best way to do that is to improve quality of life. And since the Church has its seat of power in secular Europe, it has scientific and medical advantages over pretty much everywhere else. I feel I should put in at this juncture that Christianity spread those beliefs of its through blood and violence. Yeah, towards the beginning it was the persecuted, and that wasn’t right. However, there is something about becoming the persecutor that seems ironic to me, but seemed to escape most of the medieval and modern church. (Modern not meaning today, but everything between medieval times and the enlightenment.) Some of the beliefs brought by Christianity were undoubtedly good. Others...not so much. Same with its effects. Yes, many scientific advances were brought about directly through the Church. You know what else though? Whenever those advances clashed with dogma, heresy trials began. Hell, the only reason Copernicus managed to get his book published was by June claiming that it was just a mathematical model and not indicative of reality. As a side note, I am not merely materialistic. I don’t believe in God, the Holy Spirit, or heaven. Here are some things I do believe in: Empathey, kindness, curiosity, Ingenuity, creativity, Rights, morality, blah blah blah. Note that all of these values can be existent without Christianity. (The morals question is another debate, but I’ll just leave this question: Who is more moral, he who does good of his own free will, or he who does good because he is told too? The effect is the same, but the intent is not.)

You don't believe in Heaven because it can't be proven, yet where can we find evidence for oblivion?
Tell me, would your current moral beliefs have developed independently of a Christian society? I can assure you, moral Christians are acting upon their free will.

There is a difference between heaven and oblivion, although minute. Heaven makes a claim to existence. Oblivion, by nature of being quite literally, nothing, does not. The default position when there is no evidence, is that one should investigate, yes, but make no claims about the reality of something. As we cannot prove that their is a place where souls go after death (And if souls even exist is not something I want to touch, ever.), the default is that they go nowhere. Or, more accurately, that they cease to exist. Heaven cannot be a physical place, after all, or it would be provable. Meanwhile, oblivion is not a place or a spiritual concept, but rather a lack of existence.

As for free will, I wasn’t trying to imply that God just sits there, controlling Christians. Allow me to use an example. If two men stand outside a bank and both choose not to rob it, they both appear to be good men. They are. Now, let’s look at their motivations: One chose not to rob the bank because it was against the law. The other chose not to rob the bank because it held other people’s property, and he didn’t want to take other people’s property. Who is better? I wouldn’t exist if not for a Christian society, so I very much doubt that my morals would have.

[Lord Dominator]

Side note: I got the job! Thank you all for your prayers!

Congratulations!

[Luminesa]

Side note: I got the job! Thank you all for your prayers!

Congratulations! May God guide you as you start your work!

[Pasong Tirad]

Should point out here that only the Saints are those we believe for sure have made it to heaven.

A list that is also questionable, what with the likes of Saint Thomas More in it, a man who was at the very least indirectly responsible for the cruel punishment, executions, and public shaming of people for questioning the Roman church, and in the case of Tyndale simply because he translated certain Greek words into things that didn't 100% reflect the Catholic vocabulary.

Saint Thomas More was put to death because of his faith, though. There are hundreds of saints with questionable backgrounds - it doesn't mean they don't deserve to be saints. Saint Ignatius of Loyola was a brute, a soldier, a womanizer, and a drunkard until a cannonball shot is knee off and he "found God," so to speak. Even Saint Peter denied Christ to avoid persecution. No saint without a past, no sinner without a future, as the saying goes.

Side note: I got the job! Thank you all for your prayers!

Congratulations, my dude! May everything you do be for the greater glory of God!

[Stonok]

I've resumed my daily scripture reading in hopes of bringing myself closer to God, as for the past couple years I have lived in sins such as wrath and adultery of the heart (though not of the body) and it has made me feel somewhat far from God.

I finished the Gospel of Luke yesterday and am beginning in John today and I cannot believe I ever even came close to arguing for Unitarianism considering how utterly blatant Christ's deity is asserted in this gospel. I suppose that is what happens when you become too obsessed with the academic aspect of Christianity rather than focusing on the words of God Himself.

[Lord Dominator]

Apparently Protestants are only tied with Evangelicals, and behind Baptists and Eastern Orthodoxy. I guess I can be happy to be ahead of the Anglicans?

Also, going to a religious college is pretty interesting, pretty fun so far