Zobel said:

---

Is idolatry a path to God?

---

Zobel said:

---

Is idolatry a path to God?

---

747Ag said:

---

Thus the privation of good is actually good. This is fun.

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Is idolatry a path to God?

---

What about Satanism? Isn't an inversion of the truth in a way a recognition of the truth?

---

Quote:

---

No, the Bible is clear: The only way to God is through his Son Jesus Christ.

---

jrico2727 said:

---

powerbelly said:

---

Quote:

---

It may shock some, but it is very likely that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and other non-Christians will walk the streets of heaven!

---

God can obviously do whatever he wants, but this seems contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

---

The nuance and what is being abused by some is what is know as invincible ignorance. When answering the question on what about the noble savage that never learned of Christ, would a just God, condemn them in hell? What the church teaches is that God will judge and wouldn't just instantly condemn based on that fact alone. Now what about modern societies where people have more knowledge than ever before? Now people want to further nuance culture and personal biases and then blame bad behavior of current and prior Christians. At what point does invincible ignorance turn into intentional ignorance? What we know for sure is the words of Christ state that he is the only way to the Father. He instructs his followers to preach the Gospel and baptize all nations. Doesn't seem so nuanced.

---

PabloSerna said:

---

You are certainly entitled to your opinion about me. However, your understanding of the Roman Catholic Church regarding its well documented positions on inter-religious dialogue is way off and evident in your summation.

---

747Ag said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

The Pope is espousing heresy. End of story. The only good thing is he's winging it off the cuff and not formally teaching it.

Exsurge Domine, the foxes are in the vineyard again

---

Round 2: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2024/09/17/240917a.html

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

You are certainly entitled to your opinion about me. However, your understanding of the Roman Catholic Church regarding its well documented positions on inter-religious dialogue is way off and evident in your summation.

---

Which is a modern invention as I've already said, hence you relied on post Vatican 2 justifications.

That Rome did a 180 isn't a problem. It's a good thing.

But pretending that Rome always believed what it believes now is just a lie.

---

NoahAg said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

No, the Bible is clear: The only way to God is through his Son Jesus Christ.

---

This is almost a tautology for Christians. Christ is the bridge between the divine and creation, between the physical and the spiritual, and between heaven and earth. Creation was made through Christ. As created beings, he's the link between us and the Father. We inherit eternal life after death because he led the way first.

Taking that verse to mean that only avowed Christians gain eternal life is pretty bad eisegesis, especially given Jesus' own words that being an avowed Christian is not the path to salvation (Matthew 7)

---

John 14:6 is straightforward.
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

---

PabloSerna said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

You are certainly entitled to your opinion about me. However, your understanding of the Roman Catholic Church regarding its well documented positions on inter-religious dialogue is way off and evident in your summation.

---

Which is a modern invention as I've already said, hence you relied on post Vatican 2 justifications.

That Rome did a 180 isn't a problem. It's a good thing.

But pretending that Rome always believed what it believes now is just a lie.

---

To your first statement; the significance of Vatican II is stated most clearly in this document, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World - Gaudium et Spes - You will likely not even glance at it, however, your dismissal of Vatican II as some "modern invention" is childish.

To your second statement, that the church did a 180. I have tried to point out through scripture in particular Paul's sermon in Athens at the Aeropagus (Acts 17:16-34) and other documents that are more specific in particular, Nostra Aetate which is the conciliar statement promulgated by the Bishops at Vatican II- all acknowledge that God's work, Signs of the Times, are evident of his presence in the world, "a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men." At the same time, this is not saying all religions are equal. THAT is the heresy of indifference. Not exactly a 180.

To your last statement, it is clear that "Rome" has always and still believes that in it lies the fullness of truth when it comes to proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, this makes sense when you read Paul's opening remarks to the Athenians. So, I would say your last point again -is off base.

---

Quote:

---

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

---

The Banned said:

---

False equivalency.

A council talking about heretics leaving the Church at a time when it was relatively whole is very different than a council talking about other people who have been born and raised outside the Church. The council of Florence came at a time when the Catholic Church was THE church. You couldn't plead ignorance.

500 years and a thousand denominations later, there is plenty of room for people to be actively seeking God while not in communion with the Church. Many people are raised with false understandings of what the Church teaches, or don't even have access to the Church. Heck, even ~60 years after Florence the new world was discovered and tons of people who had never heard the gospel had to be considered. Leaving the church or not joining the church that you know about is very different than not joining a church you've either never come in contact with or have heard lies about since childhood

ETA: this was also during a time when east and west were discussing reunification, so stressing that all believers should be inside of one true Church also makes sense for the time period.

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Seems like a sidebar. The underlying question is the issue of rcc statements, clarifications, letters, missives, and off the cuff papal comments that must always be reconciled or interpreted in an ever isolating way. Rome has done its own thing for a thousand years and now has an ecosystem to sustain. It's hard to accuse other Christians of being unwilling to reconcile or resistant to unity if one doesn't recognize how one's own church and tradition have been shaped and formed this far downstream of the split and papal revolution.

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Seems like a sidebar. The underlying question is the issue of rcc statements, clarifications, letters, missives, and off the cuff papal comments that must always be reconciled or interpreted in an ever isolating way. Rome has done its own thing for a thousand years and now has an ecosystem to sustain. It's hard to accuse other Christians of being unwilling to reconcile or resistant to unity if one doesn't recognize how one's own church and tradition have been shaped and formed this far downstream of the split and papal revolution.

---

And I imagine we could have that conversation without the histrionics of are you condemning me to hell if we disagree.

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---