I would punish my children, but if they never apologized I surely wouldn't toss them into a lake of fire. That would make me a horrible parent.
I really hope that your children never give you any major trouble. My oldest really rebelled when he was 17. He would hide one of his shoes (between the box springs and mattress:rofl: ) to try to get out of going to church. He was slipping out of the house at night to party with his friends. He had an "older" woman meeting him on the side. He would just sleep at school. He was failing. He would lose his temper with all of the family. He was terribly jealous of any girl he dated. He would get so mad with me when I scolded or punished him, that his fist would doulble up at his sides. That was 25 yrs ago and I have always been large and athletic. He just couldn't get up enough nerve to try me. He just had to make his own mistakes and find his own way. Finally, he had to go or live according to our family rules. He left that day. I promise you that it is terribly hard to watch one of your own leave like that. He's a good man today. Several times, he has told me that he wished that I had just whipped his butt and put him back in his room. If I had done that, he would have only continued to give us more and more problems. He HAD to learn on his own. But like the prodical son, he always had a place to come home to. He finally figured that out and returned. But some of the choices he made continue to haunt him today. (low education, failed marriage,etc) I loved him the day he left and still love him today. I realize that the streets is not a burning pit of fire, but it can be close. It doesn't seem any different when you see your child walk away and you fear for his safety.
I'm glad it worked out between you and your son, but the prodigal son scenario isn't the equivalent just because after your son decided to straighten himself out, he had the option of returning into good graces. People who are damned to hell have no options, as god does not seemingly change his mind on punishment.
Most of the time, people have almost their whole life to make the decision that determines Heaven or hell. There are a lot of times that seems really questionable, I'll agree. Like the death of a young person. That person may have only had, say, 20 years of life in which to make a decision. Some others have 80 or 90. It doesn't seem fair. God, from what I believe, will provide some chances of comittment for a period of time. How long? I don't know. Perhaps it varies. All things are not for me to understand at this time. If I could answer all questions, then I would be equal with God's knowledge. Some say that He will eventually pull the Holy Spirit away. I don't know. ALL MEN ARE CREATED equal.............that's not in the Bible. We may be concieved in the same manner, but once you take that first breath of air, you are on your own, bubba. Everyone has their own obsticles to overcome. Some are much harder than others. Will God allow for this as He judges us? I hope so. That's why our preachers warn to be prepared for we don't know if we will make it home from work today. Speaking of home------------it's about that time. Have a great day USM and a wonderful weekend.:thumb: :geauxtige
Thanks for discussing without anger!!! I have to come in for a while Sat. am. Maybe I will have time to post. I remember those years (about 20-23 years ago) when there was so much talk about hidden messages on recordings. I think you mentioned it somewhere earlier. I believe they called it "backwards masking?"
The Church from the very beginning has been concerned about false teachings. Paul and other apostles constantly warned about false teachers. The question was how to deal with heresy. One way was apologetics: explaining the position of the Church. The Inquisition was another way and proved to be more of a detriment than a benefit to the Church. But the Inquisition was more about enforcing truth than it was about articulating it. So there was nothing that the Inquisition did that denied the truth or that was untruthful. It was its excesses that Pope John Paul apologized for; not for the truth that it was defending. The Reformation denied the importance of the role a Christian lifestyle (good works) has in salvation and the role the individual plays in his or her own salvation, and in so doing denied Scripture; taught that man was completely corrupt; denied many if not all of the Sacraments; and rejected the priesthood. All of this contradicts the "Deposit of Faith" passed on by the Apostles. The Crusades were concerned with winning back the Holy Land; not about the promulgation of truth. The Crusaders were warriors; not teachers. The Church dates back to Christ and the Apostles; not just to Paul. That is why it is called the Apostolic Church - because it is based on the teachings of the Apostles. While Paul was not strictly speaking one the the Twelve, he earned the status of an apostle, and his teachings are equal in status to theirs. Apostolic Succession is derived from the twelve Apostles and Paul. When the Protestant Churches broke away from Rome, they relinquished their claim to Apostolic Succession which is the means by which the "Deposit of Faith" is passed on.
Methinks they doth complain too much. False prophets abound and they can often be recognized by their denounciation of false prophets. Whitewash. Torture and murder in the name of God is not truth. Heresy is in the eye of whatever shaman you follow. I see that the problem here is that what you keep calling truth is in fact religious dogma. "Truth" means something very different to me. So they claim. Mormons claim that the Angel Moroni gave them golden tablets. Jews claim that the Messiah has not come yet. Frizbetarians think that when you die, your soul lands on the roof and won't come down. So sayeth the church. He's an honorary apostle, because they need it to be so. Where is the unbroken link from the twelve to Paul? A vision from God does not an apostolic link make. I did not mean to sound like Yoda. When a group divides into two groups, they are both equally convinced that they are right. Who is to say that Martin Luther's vision was less authentic than Paul's? Perhaps he established an unbroken link with the apostles and should therefore be an honorary apostle, too.
You're touching on a broad disconnect between Catholics and everyone else with this, IMO. There seems to be quite a bit of disagreement between if (really, when) the Catholic church became primarily a political entity rather than an entity which carried the proverbial word of Jesus. I suspect it occurred rather recently after His death, but I'm no expert. Much like many of us decry Islam for the political leaders that benefit themselves while oppressing their people in the name of religion, I find it ironic and more than a bit hypocritical that a similar self-interested analogy isn't accepted amongst the Catholic.
