munari

I'm only going to respond on this thread to thank you all for the way you have responded. I'm not going to waste my time responding to these accusations.

For the most part I would agree with that. It would either be a conscience effort or, like I said before, someone telling God that He can't forgive them of their sins because their sins are too great. That is denying God His ability to forgive sin and is denying His love. It is taking God's very power (in one sense) away from Him. But, I also believe that this is not the only way one can lose their salvation. Catholic theology, as I'm sure you're at least aware of on a surface level, has what is known as mortal sin. These are sins that if a person dies with on their soul, they will go to hell. But, there are three conditions for a sin to be mortal, and they must all be met. In order for a sin to be mortal, it must: 1. Consist of grave matter (the sin must be profound enough, ie. murder, fornication, even contraception) 2. The person must be aware that what they have done IS grave matter (someone who has an abortion but does not know it is grave matter would not be guilty of a mortal sin). 3. The person must have the freedom of will. Fear (in the case of abortion) or habit (fornication, masterbation) can lessen the degree of the sin if not completely remove the guilt of the sin. I mention all of this so you understand where I'm coming from. For my beliefs, it does not have to be an effort to mock God, but just a hardness of heart could do it.

yod, I can empathize with you. Paul does too: I've heard the stories of people who have thrown off the terrors of drug abuse and turned from a life of fornication and other attrocities. But I believe they are more the exception than the rule. Here, we have Paul, an apostle of the Lord, telling us that he does the things he does not want to do. I do like you. I make amends to stop sinning, do good for a while, and then find myself doing the EXACT same thing again! Now, can this sin be terrible enough to cut me off from God? Yes, it can. What do I do? I pray, everyday, asking God to allow me to use the grace and strength that He has already given me. I used to pray for strength, but I stopped doing that. Why? Because, I realized, it is not God that is failing, it is me. He has already given me all of the strength that I need. It is I that fail in using that strength, I'm the weak one, not God. So, now I pray that He will give me grace in order to give me courage to do what He wants and so I can use His strength. I, being Catholic, also take advantage of Confession. I tell you my non-Catholic brothers and sisters, don't knock it 'til you've tried it. I stayed away from it for YEARS, and I felt bad. I went to Confession finally, by the grace of God, and confessed my sins. Afterwards, when I heard Christ speak to me through the priest, "I absolve you from you sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", a weight was lifted. I felt my sins leave me. But how quickly we forget because I committed those same sins again. Not because I wanted to, but because I'm weak. So, what do I do. I go to Confession again and confess to the priest the SAME SINS! How humbling and humiliating. But, I keep trying, and keep humbling myself, and I allow myself to go because I need to be humbled and humiliated until I step in line with God's will for me.

yod, Still there?

yod, I sent you a PM, but I keep getting an error. Let me know if you got it.

YOD, Yes, the Corinthians were pretty bad, but the letter I quoted was to the Hebrews. The Hebrews had known God for about 4000 years, so they should have known better... even though their history shows otherwise. The Corinthians though, being Gentiles and pagans, were used to "loose living". This was something they did and didn't really think much of it. Their culpability for those sins would not be as great yet because they were yet children, they didn't really know better. The Hebrews though, being 4000 years old, had known God for quite some time. I think you're looking for too much in there. I know my interpretation is kind of scary, but I think its pretty accurate. It throws away the notion of OSAS and tells us any of us, even those who think they're saved, can still fall from God. It tells us that there is a single visible Church. But I think those things are true, no matter how comfortable they are.

Yes, you are absolutely right about Peter, that is different. As far as my interpretation on those verses, where do you think it does not jibe with the Scriptures? Let me quote the section without the Chapter break, which I think in this case hurts understanding of this part of scripture. Chapter 5 really flows into 6 as if it is just one sentence after another, as the original is:

If that means that a person could not receive repentance after turning away from God, even Peter would not be in heaven because he denied Christ. Anyone who has accepted God in their lives would be utterly rejected when they committed a sin. I think this verse, Hebrews 6:4 is speaking more about those who teach and those who reject the traditions he describes in verses 1 & 2. I think he is speaking more about those who are apostate, those who decide I don't need to do it the way the Church is teaching, but I can do it my own way. They are laying a new foundation (v. 1) and hence, are recrucifying Christ because they are reinventing the wheel. They are saying it wasn't good enough the first time...

YOD, You ARE one of them, we all are... well, at least potentially we could be. None of us knows our future, and anyone of us could reach a point in our lives where we say, "That's it God, I've had it. What have you really done for me" and then turn our back on Him. That's why daily conversion is so important. Recommitting yourself to Christ everyday so that you will finish the race.

YOD, I would say you are right in a sense, but I would not say those actions are the unpardonable sins, but they set the stage for the unpardonable sin, which I believe would be not allowing God to forgive them of those sins. But, I do believe what you are saying, committing some sins could lead us to losing our salvation, but only if we do not ask for forgiveness.

Thanks traveller. There was something else that I meant to put down before, but I didn't. By not accepting God's ability to forgive our sins, we are taking away His power. We are telling God, you can't do this, you are uncapable of doing it, my sins are more powerful than your grace. We are stripping God of His power by not accepting His forgiveness. We are fully rejecting Him, who is love, and not allowing Him to love us through forgiving us.

I would like to add that I believe the "unpardonable sin" is not accepting God's forgiveness. Even a Christian (in name at least) can start getting in the mind set that I've done too much, God won't forgive, etc. If we do not accept his love, grace, and forgiveness, we will not receive it. Oddly enough though, we can't accept it withou his grace... its a circle, but this circle starts with God. Cat and angels, I would say those are excellent illustrations.

I just want to make sure that something is understood here. The Portugese do not refer to Mary as Fatima. Rather, the town of Fatima in Portugal is where an apirition of the Virgin Mary appeared to people, and is referred to as Our Lady of Fatima. Now, if I remember correctly, Fatima, Portugal WAS named after Mohammed's Fatima when that area of Europe was conquered by the Muslims until it was liberated again during the Crusades.

You are right, it is a shame, but its good that we know it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/07/24...r.ap/index.html

To be quite frank on this... this is a statement that is very dangerous to make because as you can see from the sites I posted, the one is Catholic, the other is not... actually, it is probably from and anti-Catholic source... from what they posted from Scripture, they come up with Friday as the day of crucifixion. In reality, when it comes to Scriptures, I'm either going to accept your interpretation, my interpretation, or someone else's interpretation of the text... they're all the opinion of men, either you yourself or the opinion of others. The interpretation I believe, a Friday crucifixion, has been around for 1600 years, giving you the benefit of the doubt that Good Friday was not actually celebrated until the (end of) 4th century. Are you sure that you're missing some of the idiomatic language of the ancient text? In the one site, even a Protestant agrees that "three days and three nights" was not used as literal during that time...

It took some searching, but I found a site that deals with this issue and defends Good Friday. I know you asked me to just read it myself and respond with my own words... but you see, I am ignorant of this subject. I never knew of it prior to this. Why would I try to form an opinion based upon just what you gave me and then allow my thoughts on the topic to be swayed by only your point of view? That is not good research. This is the site I found: http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/wedn...rucifixion.html Although I cannot subscribe to the rest of the site... this particular article was relevant. I have also just found another site on this: http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q084.htm

How do I explain that discrepancy? I see no problem in saying that it was a difference in the reporting of two different sources on a minute detail of when the spices were purchased. It was a solemn sabbath because of Passover, correct? I don't know much about Jewish calendars. On our calendar, it could be any day of the week. Are Jewish calendars set up differently? Sabbath was a particular day of the week, what we call Saturday. It didn't float around, did it? The way you have summarized this, it is not possible, it is a paradox, unless you incorporate time travel. What is your explanation?

Blindseeker, I found it! This is during the crucifixion. The day BEFORE the Sabbath is Friday, and Jesus is hanging on the cross on Friday. The Bible does not tell us that Christ hung on the cross for days on end, so the day he died on the cross is the day he died on the cross, which is the day before the Sabbath, Friday. You're using European and American modern understanding of keeping time and not using what they would have understood back then.

Wednesday??? where is that in the Bible? On the third day he rose again. Friday, day one Saturday, day two Sunday, day three This is how the Jews counted time, any part of one day was considered a day. Wednesday would be: Wednesday, day one Thursday, day two Friday, day three Saturday, day four Sunday, day five Angels, Yes, Jesus died once. Yes, Jesus' sacrafice was "once and for all time". This is absolutely True. But Jesus also said, "Do this in rememberance of me" and told us to eat his Body and drink his Blood and presented us with his Body and Blood in the form of bread and wine. Just as the Jews were required to eat the sacraficial lamb, we too must eat God's sacraficial lamb, Jesus Christ, during the sacrafice of the Mass, which is a participation in the "once and for all" sacrafice of Cavalry. This isn't a separate or new sacrafice, it is participation in the same sacrafice.

The "it" in "It is finished" is a reference to the Passover Sacrafice that Christ began at the Last Supper and completed with the shedding of his blood and death on the cross. Instead of me trying to explain and botching it up, I will post my source at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/4thCup.htm This is kind of long, so I will pull out the part that is most relevant to this post. I would encourage you all to go and read the whole thing.

I think it is also good to point out that sometimes he needs to prepare US to RECEIVE that "special sauce". If we get what we want without making the necessary changes, we become spoiled children... Another good point is that sometimes our order gets "screwed up" at the restaraunt. However, with good, those changes between our "order" and the "food" we receive may be slightly different... but that's not because God messed up our order, but because our order wasn't good for us. Too bad MickyD's doesn't do that for us!

Look for someone who is APA (American Psychological Association) accredited. You don't want to go to someone else because they may focus on the "party hypnotism" instead of hypnotherapy. They may also try and do ridiculous stuff like "past life regression". This is something not accepted or taught by the APA. The APA will teach many non-Christian things, but you can accept and reject these things as you will, just make sure you can pass the tests. And don't feel like you're going against your morals if you answer something on a test that DOES go against your morals. Answering a question of fact is not going against your morals, it is stating what the answer to a question is, not what your opinion of it is. I know some people have problems in this area.

Because hypnotism is not understood. Its mysterious. Its an easy target. Plus, most people are not willing to toss the 'ole doc to the curb, hypnotism is not seen as necessary, doctors are.

In my opinion, its no more evil than any mind and body altering drugs. And ALL drugs alter both the mind and body to some degree.