mobile21

Dear Thomas: Where do you draw the "salvation/damnation" line???? If something has no consequences, does it really count as a sin???? If something goes against a commandment, but that action is not a sin, is the commandment wrong????. Blessings.

Dear His Son: There's no controversy about what the Bible says. There's controversy about the way some people interpret the meaning of being born again. The Bible says: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Jn 3, 5) Jesus is explaining exactly how the Sacrament works: God gives a specific grace at the same time the Minister gives the material sign of it (the water). In other words: we can make a distinction on the theoretical level between the two, the water and the grace, but because they come together we can't make a practical distinction. Despite what the Bible clearly syas, there are people who believe the "born again" process is different than that of Baptism. They claim that if you were baptized while being a child, you -as an adult- have to undergo a certain process so you can be "truly born again". That would mean God's grace is subjective and not objective, and that's where we do not agree. Blessings.

Hi all! With time I came to realize that what went on in my life was not the devil's work but God's!. The Bible tells us this: "Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it." (Heb 12, 10-11) It turns out the Lord disciplined me and it was for the better; at the time I couldn't understand exactly what was going on, but everything I had to "suffer" taught me a lesson of a lifetime. For all of you who wonder what causes lots of bad things in your life, think about the consequences that situation brings to your life: if the "fruit" is good then it comes from God even if it seems rather difficult to understand. Blessings.

Actually, there is a reason............... The reason is that too many ppl have been deceived by this false doctrine. Too many ppl believe in some "label" of "being born again" and think that no matter what they do, they'll be saved because of the "born again ritual". I think that's a pretty good reason. Blessings.

Dear Steve Hut: So the person doesn't have to have faith or repent to be baptized? That would be news to me. Otherwise, yes, I agree with your point. Since Jesus says you have to be born again to be saved, and Christians claim to be saved, then how can you be saved without being born again? A very inconsistent position, indeed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I do not claim to be "saved". You have to persevere till the very end to be saved, that's what Scripture says, so you have to keep being faithful from Baptism to death (till God grants you life here on Earth, that is). This is why I say the "born again" doctrine makes no sense whatsoever; it's a doctrine that has no practical consequences because no matter how you put it, you have to persevere till the end. Why to believe in a doctrine that is good for nothing? This is my point. Blessings.

Hi Ernie: The thief was indeed baptized. There are 3 types of Baptism: 1) Baptism of water 2) Baptism of fire 3) Baptism of desire The thief received the Baptism of desire. The grace is the very same in the 3 of them. Then again, this puts you at odds with Scripture since the Bible talks so much about those Sacraments...........!. This sounds like "optional" and I don't think the truth is optional............... if you know something to be true, then you have to live according to that truth and not saying "it's all optional". I think this idea of "optional" is yet another consequence of the "fear of commitment" thing of modern culture. Ppl don't seem to want to be christians unless the only thing they have to do is to declare one time & one time only Jesus as their Lord & Savior. I believe the exact opposite is true: to be a christian is to have a commitment that lasts a lifetime. Blessings.

Hi! & thanx. So basically you believe that the Sacrament of Baptism carries no particular grace with it?. If that's so, then why you think Jesus emphasizes Baptism and gives to it the same importance as to preaching the Gospel (Mt. 28, 19)?.

Hi all!. As you may know, the majority of protestants keep at least one Sacrament: Baptism. Sacraments (Baptism included) provide an objective grace that does not depend on the individual (if it would, it'd be subjective) so Baptism is indeed being "born again". But in protestantism, this "born again" thing teaches that you can divide among baptized ppl, those who are "born again" and those who are not; it depends on who you ask what is being "born again" but most seem to think that it's an intellectual level of realization of one's religion (that implies to talk more about your faith and so on). This kind of thought is inconsistent with the reality of Baptism itself, because if you believe in the objectivity of grace, then you can't at the same time believe in a doctrine that preaches subjectivity of grace (hence, separating Baptism from "born againess"). So, what you believe is being "born again"??? If a person is baptized and then doing the "born again" thing......... has that person being born again 3 times??? or just 2????? (meaning the first time you were born with the original sin, then being born again through the grace of Baptism and then through the experience mentioned above). Is the content of the born again doctrine biblical, or it's just a biblical name with an unbiblical content?. If you have been baptized but not have the "born again" social distinction...... does it really matter?. And last but not least, what's the value of this born again "emotional Baptism" when compared to the true Baptism?. See you later!.

Dear Gianour: I believe Sabbath in the OT is Saturday as well.................. but that changes nothing. Our Lord resurrected on Sunday and He presided over the very first Eucharist after His Resurrection (and after it was instituted) on Sunday (Lk 24, 13; 30) and that's why we christians worship on Sunday. Besides, Adventism makes no sense because it relies on the mosaic Law but doesn't accept it as the whole 613 commandments; they only accept the "10 commandments" so they say they live by the Law but that's not true because they just ignore the truth on purpose.

It's worth the time but I'm really tired right now so lemme sum it up: 1) I do not believe in Mary having other children because the Scripture only mentions one "Son of Mary" and that's Jesus. The other ones (Jesus' cousins) are sons of another Mary, not the same person. I will never believe in Jesus' "half-brothers" until someone shows me a biblical verse where it says: "Lisa, the daughter of Mary the Mother of Jesus" or "Bart, the son of Mary the Mother of Jesus". I'm sure that's not too much to ask because that's how the Holy Scriptures identify someone's son or daughter. 2) There have been 4 Immaculate Persons in history: Adam, Eve, Jesus and Mary. 3) There are 4 Persons currently alive in body and soul: Enoch, Elijah, Mary and Jesus and the 4 of them appear in Revelations precisely because of that same characteristic of having a body (Enoch & Elijah are the two witnesses).

The whole truth about homosexuality: http://www.narth.com

But we can. Just look at how God declares He'll create Mary sinless in Gen 3, 15. If that doesn't do the trick, I dunno what will. Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." How is Genesis 3:15 declaring God will create Mary sinless? Luke 1:46-47 "I will put enmity between you and the woman" God happens to mention that because with original sin there's really no more enmity between Satan and humans, He has to artificially put it there (the enmity) for Mary, that is to create Her immaculate like Adam and Eve were. Protestants tend to ignore the special intervention God talks about in Gen 3, 15 and for them, in reality that intervention equals to nothing at all (something that is absurd obviously, because you just cannot disregard God's Word). A very frequent question. It doesn't matter if you are an Immaculate human being like Adam and Eve were, you *still need* the Savior because He is the one to restore the relationship between mankind and The Lord, and only the Savior was the one that could open Heaven again for mankind (remember that before Jesus, all the good ppl including Abraham were stuck at the place called "Sheol", and they could only inherit the Kingdom after Jesus).

I'm aware that satanists believe that Hell is a place not of punishment but of pleasure. Regardless of what I believe of satanists, it's obvious you have to be very ignorant to believe in the afterlife and to believe at the same time in "two or more places of reward" for "two or more kinds of ppl".

But we can. Just look at how God declares He'll create Mary sinless in Gen 3, 15. If that doesn't do the trick, I dunno what will. We can. Romans establishes a direct link between sin and death, so if She is sinless, she never died. And of course, then there's Mary including her body in Rev 12, 1. Those who appear in Revelations all have bodies like Elijah, Enoch and of course Jesus. We find Mary there and She has a body so............ We absolutely can. Can you name other son or daughter of Mary besides Jesus?. Believe me....... I've asked that question to protestants over the years and none have find a single son or daughter of Mary other than Jesus (of course, those who don't know the Bible very well believe that His cousins were "His brothers" and they tend to confuse the other Mary with Mary the Mother of Jesus). I don't think so because it belongs to Tradition things like "where Mary saw the Angel". Mary being sinless and being alive in body and soul belongs to Scripture, not Tradition.

Why don't you name names??????. We catholics have been around this board for A LONG TIME so I guess that by now you can say which one of us believes in such thing. Is it me or nemuni or nicholas???. And if you can't find one catholic, then............. why would you believe in something that is just not there? that isn't real?. It's true the Pope is very devout and it's great that he happens to be one of the finest christians in history. Who knew! A devout of Mary and a great christian........ all at the same time!.

The link doesn't work. Anyway, all the "Mary debates" have proved protestants don't believe in the biblical Mary and they just keep these fictitious conflicts alive in order to justify their separations. It turns out they now want to bury the truth with tons of text.....

The problem I see in that conversation is the doctrine of calvinism. Calvinism is a doctrine that is not true so you don't have to worry about it. You *can't* be saved while on Earth (before God judges you and declares you are saved), and you don't have to say the "sacramental formula" of "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" because it goes against Mt 7, 21 and it's an unbiblical formula.

Dear Reaperman: I think you need to be faithful to the true doctrine, always accept God's Will acting in your life and leave the end of times biz to God. You don't actually have to worry for all that because that's not why God created you. He created you for the truth and love.

So now St. Agustine is a protestant??????. That's outrageous!. St. Augustine would've never said those terrible lies about the Church (Christ's bride).

That McThing is so true. There are ppl who say "I'm saved" and they truly believe they can choose salvation with a perfect single expression of free will like the angels do. We cannot do that because we humans need a constant option for salvation and that's an option of a lifetime.

So the true Church was defeated right???? Nope, not true. The only true Church founded by Jesus Christ that will never be defeated (because the Bible says so) is the Catholic Church. Christ has only one bride, not 33,000 brides (all the protestant churches). God bless.

Shakespeare was not gay. There's a movement (conspiracy?) of gays that tries to depict every great person of history as "gay". They say that of DaVinci and of Alexander the Great and so on and so forth. The same lies always come from the same authors (who happen to be gay).