First Thoughts?

First...Welcome aboard. Much as you stated, townhall has lots of differing opinions but a common conservatism throughout. Similar to the question you have asked. While I as a Roman Catholic have different traditions, thoughts, beliefs...all christians are peacefully linked by the belief that Jesus is the Son of GOD.

...and that cows are evil! (just kidding)

Now I get harpooned often about this, because I am a Mormon and people often will say we don't believe in Christ. And if I tend to oppose that, I get told I believe in a "different" Christ, as if somehow having a different doctrine in your church means you don't believe in Christ.
Well, if that were the case, then no two sects would agree. But how is this for an answer?
Muslims believe in Christ, but as a prophet, not the Son of God. So I propose the definition of a Christian: someone who believes in Christ as their savior.

while it is true there are many "doctrinal differences" among denominations and what makes a person Christian is Christ. there are also many doctrinal similarities...those similarities are very basic and have been handed down through the centuries. they are doctrines that were established by the apostles and the early church. it is those core doctines that are foundational to all Christians and if someone or a group of people venture away from those basic doctrines then they are not Christian. again the "apostles creed" is a very succinct statement of many of those doctrines, plus it lines up with scripture (the Bible). doctrines such as-who God is in His nature and being, who Jesus Christ is (again in His nature and being), the Holy Spirit, the infallibility of the Bible, not adding any other text to the Bible, salvation, the sinfulness and sin nature of man, mankind's need for a Savior are other foundational doctrines that must be adhered to otherwise there is error and heresy.
finally, while it is true that the apostles had "differences" i do not believe that you should attach those to doctrinal differences...we all have differences-i may prefer red, you mey prefer blue, i may think classical music is better, you may think country music is better. while those are differences in opinion and taste...maybe even differences in ideas or philosophies, they have nothing to do with foundational Christian doctrines. so yes while the apostles may have had those types of differences we should be careful not to confuse those with differences in doctrine. historically (and in scripture) we see that the apostles agreed on basic-foundational-Christian doctrine.

Thanks for the visit. Perhaps sometime you would share with me those other passages you referred to regarding active resistance.

Doctrinal purity did not exist in the New Testament church, nor should those who believe the Bible ever expect it in this age. We are warned numerous times by Christ and His apostles to beware of the false teachers that enter the church with their false doctrine in order to deceive many and draw them away from the faith.

Consider the question of how to discern truth from error...

Thanks for the visit and the capable assist with my reader's questions.

I think Christians hold faith in commonality. By faith, I mean that we consent for Jesus Christ to be our Savior and we confess that He (alone) is Lord. Faith is central. Without it, we cannot claim we know Jesus.

Why have you stopped writing in your blog.??. Just curious. Your intervention at TH hall tonight is appreciated. (I followed your link)

You mention your wife and kids. This is really very common to many people who are up in arms about the lack of control over this illegal migration. Really, a large number of people involved actively have a similar situation in their home as I do.

I have stated that the illegals do more to harm the legals than any thing else could. Just look at the situation. No one was jabbering about immigrants until recently. It's like a boil. It sits there getting red and swelling a little until one day you notice that it hurts and is coming to a head.

Stay with us. Your faith, which I share, is going to stand us in good stead one day. The commonality of Christians. I hate it when someone says that Roman Catholics or Mormons or whomever is not Christian. Sure, the approach is different, but Jesus did not ask for churches or doctrines, but rather for faith and belief.

Always a Marine, Semper Fi from my Marine daughter and her CCT dad.

I've been hit with life lately but will be adding to the blog soon. There is a difference between denominational leadership and the individual. I do have trouble understanding the doctrine (deep stuff sometimes) of the Roman Catholics and Mormons. My best friend is RCC and I also had a good friend in the Air Force that is Mormon. So as followers of Christ, we are one. It is when we place the doctrine above the Bible that makes me wonder and think about the warnings given us by the apostles. I'm not ready to tackle that discussion yet but will be starting a new blog about finances and the Bible.

What makes one Christian, I think, is putting ones faith fully and completely in the Christ of the Bible. The Christ of the Bible died for our sins, and arose for victory over death. And by accepting him into our lives and acknowledging him as our savior, we are granted salvation and are Christian. There is more, and that is that we walk with him, and live our lives according to his will, not our own. This is not to say works save us, but we indeed are proven by them.

With no disrespect to Catholics or Mormons here, but both come dangersouly close to distorting who Christ is and our relationship with him. This is important...

Virginia Daddy,

I understand what you are referencing. My best friend is RCC and I had a good friend in the Air Force that is Mormon; to say we had some lively conversations would be putting it mildly. However, I do not doubt they are Christians. The problem I have is with the doctrines of denominations taking precedent over the biblical witness. I also have a problem with denominations that redefine words or cut and paste passages to justify sinful behavior. While we are all sinners, we have to recognize that we will try to move away from responsibility or try to justify what we know in our hearts is wrong. This is part of our walk with our Lord.

I must disagree with you on the points of Mormons. Catholics are certainly within the realm of Christ, though when they rely on a saint or a rosary rather than Christ, it is to that that I question them.

But Mormons are unlcear about some issues, and historically have been more than questionable. While their love for Christ is genuine, they believe (or have believed) they can become like God, literally a god. This alone raises red flags in my mind. They also believe the Bible to be incomplete and deny the trinity.

That said, certainly they are devout and great people, and I respect them as a group. But devout and great people do not make true believers. If you look at my list of absolutes, you will see why I question their Christianity.

The points you hold for Mormons should be identical for Roman Catholics. It is the unbiblical doctrines of the "denomination" and those doctrines having precedent over the Bible. You could say the same for ELCA Lutherans, ECUSA Anglicans, Fundamental Baptist, etc. Each of these have doctrines/policies that are not biblically based.

I've been reading a rather lengthy post about baptism and is it needed to receive salvation. Some doctrines make it mandatory for salvation, others don't. Part of the problem is the way the text is interpreted especially in a language like English which is not precise and in current American culture where words are redefined to be relative to the individuals desire. Shoot, there is even an argument on whether sprinkling water is sufficient or if it has to be complete immersion. Let alone what does baptism really mean in those passages.

Didn't mean to be so lengthy but I wanted to clarify the difference between the "denomination" doctrines, the congregations and the individual because many people do not agree with the denomination on those doctrines. I have been through this personally with the ELCA (and it's doctrines) and our congregation.

1) Bible is perfect word of God.
2) Trinity is full and eternal.
3) Christ died and was ressurrected for our sins.

Lets look at Mormonism and how they relate:
1) Bible is not the perfect word of God. This is one reason why we need the BOM. The Bible is not trustworthy since it has been translated so many times, and it does not include the wisdom Christ prescribed when he came the New World.

2) The trinity does not exist, at all. There is a God, and another God, Christ, and a Holy Spirit, and all work together for one purpose, but are totally separate.

3) Christ did die for our sins.

So they get one out of three. And for me, I cannot in good faith call them Christian, as I call myself a Christian, despite their love for our savior.

Some disregard some very explicit teachings, like many Anglican or Methodist Churches. They are arguably not Christian as well, because they blatantly allow for certain behaviors in their leaders and applaud them for it. Any church that cannot condemn a leader for sins, any sin, is likely not truly following Christ.

But to disagree on baptism: importance, method, or timing there is room for debate. Same with communion, tongues, music, day of the Sabbath, etc.

And translating it? Of course there will be differences. Any time you translate a language you run into difficulties. of course, the translations but reasonable, but there is room for discourse there, too.

And we can debate these until the cows come home, but as long as they recognize that the Bible (untranslated) is God's word and all we need; the Trinity exists and is eternal; and Christ died and rose again, there is that room for debate.

Some are not.

Central - is Jesus Christ not only the Son of God, but God Himself.

Central - do we come to Jesus by faith or by something else?

Central - is the Bible the Word of God, sufficient to convey God's message to His followers?

Very close to central:

Baptism as a believer's initial obedience to God. I know there are some who think they can just get it out of the way when their children are babies, but that's not baptism -- it's christening. There are less problematic ways to dedicate your child to God. Baptism should be reserved for believer's only. Using it as christening is confusing and results in adults who think they were "saved" by baptism.

Method is of less importance, though I think the symbolism of immersion best conveys the miracle of baptism.

Baptism as used in most of today's church is expressed through water. In my mind this is confusing for some.

John the Baptist used water, in the OT method, of cleansing the sins of the individual. He also stated that while he baptizes with water, that one will come who will baptize with the Spirit.

With this in mind, when we are told to accept Yeshua as our Savior and be baptized, I see that upon accepting Jesus as our Lord then we are open to the Holy Spirit baptizing us. We become filled with the Spirit. Since we are unable to "see" this, we have substituted the water cleansing as an outward sign of the acceptance of what is occurring internally.

It is indeed a miracle that God has granted us Grace not Mercy, for we are indeed guilty of our sins and deserve punishment. When we accept his Son as our Savior then God's Grace is provided.

Grace is taking away a deserved punishment while Mercy is taking away an undeserved punishment. It is only Grace through Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus the Messiah) that we become acceptable to God, not works, not baptism, not righteousness, etc.

My take is that it is a very serious thing, not one to be taken lightly, as many do. I think it symbolic, but needs to be done with the best of intentions and following Christ's example, though water. It does not in and of itself save, but it is a proclomation of our faith and is therefore very important.

My church practices by immersion, and before you can be baptized, you must take a class. And before the actual "dunking" takes place, you must publically give your testimony. It is a powerful experience.

Flame, I do appreciate your comments above. And I am sure if you were keeping up on the article of "Are Mormon's Christian" over at Truth Restored you will find that Va Daddy mistated our belief in the Bible. We do accept the Bible as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, however reading from the Greek we can find that this is not always the case. (And yes I also read Greek). We just do not accept that is the whole word of God as the Bible in no wise says that it is complete and that God is through revealing His word to men.

Anyway, it is nice seeing you over at truth restored and I appreciate your comments. BTW, my roomate in the navy, while I was stationed in Panama, was Missouri Synod and we, too, had some lively discussions but were also best of friends.

You have pointed out an interesting dichotomy. Which do we use, the Greek or the Hebrew? Isn't the LXX/Septuagint a translation of the Hebrew? One concern I have with Mormonism is the "prophet". Not so much the idea of there being prophets but how do you determine if they are true or false prophets? I see a similar problem with the RCC and it's papacy, how do they determine if their Pope (prophet) is true or false?

The Lord has bestowed lost keys upon the earth through the prophet Joseph Smith. A full discussion of the organization of the church would be well beyond the scope of these blogs. I refer you to http://www.lds.org Read the Doctrine and Covenants, the complete organizational structure can be found therein. It is through direct revelation that these men are chosen.

I definitely believe that the Hebrew is best when it comes to the books of the Old Testament and the Greek when it comes to the New. I think we should read the scripts in the languages they were origianlly written in as far as possible.

it is well beyond these blogs and beyond the scope that I laid out for the discussion. I am trying to find the non-denominational commonalities in the church and hopefully develop a biblical practical application guide for us. I found a pretty good ministry for financial (God's providence) stewardship but not much else.

Is huge and has profound impact on so many aspects.

I thought about this this morning on my way into work... But how we define "christianity", the Bible, Jesus, and so many other aspect gives so much into how we view the world. If we do not view the Bible as authoritative, we can pick and choose what is worthwhile...

definitely searching for good sources on "practical" Christianity. I think I am going to start posting each week here on the financial issues. I found a good resource for this and look forward to it. I can't wait to see the response to the biblical passages. Even our friend bc found no beef with what I posted about work on his site.

Thanks for your kind comments in my blog. I'm a practicing Roman Catholic. There is too much negative propaganda against Catholics. We truly believe Christ is our Savior and the way to God our Father.

We do venerate Saints and the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary as our role models of sanctity. Saints remind us that it is possible to follow Jesus teachings by doing, by our deeds, our acts, by our fruits, not just by faith. Charity, which is the Devine Love of God, is the glue for our Hope in Salvation through our Faith in Jesus Christ and by Jesus promise of the Grace of the Holy Spirit to be among us, a Truth and a Mystery we faithfully believe in. The Holy Spirit mystery promised to us was first evidenced in Acts 2:2-4.

The Holy Rosary has been called the preparation for contemplation and the prayer of saints. Is our direct dialog with God our Father while we praise our Lord Jesus Christ and His mother the Virgin Mary. There're 4 sets of mysteries meditated in the Rosary: Joyful, Luminous, Sorrowful, and Glorious. Each set of Mysteries has 5 Mysteries. The Catholic Church evangelization during the ages where there was no printed texts found in the Holy Rosary a way to proclaim the good news about Jesus, a way to communicate to our God Father and Creator, a way to ask for the Holy Spirit presence and blessings and a way to meditate the Mysteries starting from the Incarnation to Jesus birth, His public life, His death, and His glorious resurrection. It is a summary of Salvation and remembrance of the redemtion of our sins by Jesus death at the Cross and His Resurection through the meditation of His Mysteries.

If you are curious about the Holy Rosary, it’s history, and Scriptures accounts of each Mystery, go to this site: http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/rosary/; it will clarify many misconceptions of what the Holy Rosary is all about. Quello è tutto!

Saluti ed un abbraccio!

I appreciate you taking the time to stop in to my little part of the blogosphere. Like I stated here, I am not desiring to get into doctrinal differences instead I believe it is past time for Christians to start working together without the animosity generated by doctrines and dogmas. We need to sort the "tradition" and "dogma" from the Scriptural truth.

I am fairly familiar with the Roman Catholic doctrine as my best friend (unofficial adopted brother) of over 25 years is RCC and I have trained to perform his last rites if needed. While I can discuss with RCC about their doctrine, I am concerned with the claim of being the only "true" church of Christ. This does not fall in line with the church elders nor with Scripture. Even the church fathers used "Apostolic and Catholic church in ________ (enter name of city)". Also the apostles and elders met to decide important issues and did not have a supreme leader except for Christ.

...or when times get tough we turn to Christ. Not the Federal Gov't. Not to people. Not to images or statues. But we turn to Christ in Prayer and as a result things seemt to work out, don't they? Faith alone in Christ alone. DD

I agree that many turn to Christ in tough times and that can be good. I would prefer to see people turn to Christ and pray during times of plenty and know that he will always be there when times do get rough. IOW be thankful and not covet during the good and bad times, well all the time. :)

how do they determine if their Pope (prophet) is true or false?

I definitely believe that the Hebrew is best when it comes to the books of the Old Testament and the Greek when it comes to the New. I think we should read the scripts in the languages they were origianlly written in as far as possible.

Flame - you cannot "perform his last rites if needed." Extreme Unction is performed by a priest.

A Pope is not a prophet. He is "Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth."

Wasn't Aramaic the language of the Apostles and Christ?

Can't answer that here as I refrain from political commentary on this blog. :)

Last rites: If this can be performed only by a priest then it is an unnecessary function of Christianity and non-biblical.

Vicar of Christ: Again, I won't dwell into RCC doctrine however I have a problem with the claim that the RCC is the only successor from Peter. In fact there are earlier people that Peter installed before any in Rome which would have equal, if not greater, claim if there were such thing as Vicar.

Aramaic: My understanding is that this language is Hebrew but written in Arabic (Babylonian) style from the exile. I will look some more into the specifics.

RCC dogma, just don't like it being warped. The Pope is not a prophet, he is supposed to be 'infallible' in re. the Church.

and Last Rites/Extreme Unction is like the other sacraments (maybe, Baptism is still excluded) - ie. if you want to be married in your church, doesn't your minister have to perform(or bless) this rite?

I am afraid a lot of churches claim to be the "one" true way to God - I, too, have a problem with these assertions.

I apologize if I have offended you. I am not warping the RCC dogma however when you look at dogma, there are similarities between different denominations.

When looking at the sacraments, I fail to see where it is only a "priest" that can perform the function.

There is only "one" true way to God, unfortunately we (man) have tried to impose our opinions on what God has revealed to us.

first thanks for the note back.

And I wasn't offended - I guess I was aggravated.

I am in no position to defend the RCC - I gave up on them long ago. LOL, I guess its like someone picking on my sister - its ok for me to do it, just not an out-sider.

Your church is obviously different than my old one - are you saying that your minister does not perform baptisms/confirmations/marriages/communions?
just nosy - no disagreement.

No problem, I am happy to discuss these issues and that is part of the reason that I started the blog. I am Lutheran yet attending a Baptist Seminary, best friend of over 25 years is RCC. I am just tired of the man-made doctrine/dogma that separates the Church.

Yes, those are some of the things that our pastors perform. I think the difference is that they do not insist that only they can perform those duties. In the case of marriage, the state has determined that a pastor can officially sign a marriage certificate (or judge). So normally a pastor performs the ceremony to ensure the "legal" aspect. I have given communion to people and accepted communion from non-pastors. How else could the non-apostles have carried out the instructions from the apostles if they could not perform baptisms, communion, etc. They weren't the apostles, some were called elders, others were just common people, yet they all performed the "duties" that Christ had called for his people to accomplish.

I can accept that the Catholic Church makes these rules that apply only to members of the Church - they do recognize sacraments in other churches for their members, just not in relation to being Catholic -

well I thoroughly muddled that one up - I'll invent a specific example - LOL albeit silly - if you and your wife wanted to convert, your baptisms and marriage would be considered valid in the eyes of the Church, confirmation, I'm pretty sure, would be necessary. They do not recognize a marriage by a judge or jp.

As to the laity performing some sacraments its long been acceptable when no priest is available.

I do understand and probably agree with you about 'common people' performing these duties - but, that's their rules - tho I do not think they are unique in insisting that their clergy perform certain rites.

Most denominations have leaders (priest, pastor, minister, etc.) for the theological (about God) teachings, this is where many disagreements occur.

On Valiant's blog (http://valiantfortruth.townhall.com/Default.aspx) you can see the differences between Valiant (more calvinistic) and aurora (more arminian) (http://aurorawatcher.townhall.com/Default.aspx) in the approach to both theological and Christological practices. You can also see on bc's blog (http://inconvenientexposure.townhall.com/Default.aspx) the RCC practice, you can also find Mormon and others.

This is where I make the evaluation about man-made rules (like the Pharisees) and how can we resolve the differences as Christians.

just skip Valiant's blog - I differ strongly with some of his interpretations/opinions.

What do you mean "how can we resolve the differences as Christians."? By 'resolve' did you mean accept or respect?

Unfortunately, in my opinion, most denominations are sure that they are uniquely and divinely the one-true-way - the rest of us are damned.

Neither accept or respect, instead search together for the truth. Part of the current (and past) problems is the lack of honest, truthful, scholarship. The ability to sit down and discuss, with the Holy Spirit present, the doctrines of the denominations and Scripture itself. Instead we simply ignore those with whom we disagree.

While I differ from Valiant on some issues, I have also learned a lot from reading and responding on his blog. In our discussions, we have seen where some of the differences between us occur and some of the commonalities. Free will is a good example, my position is that we have free will, that God has offered us a path to reconciliation with him even though we do not deserve this opportunity. God makes the offer and we either accept or reject, which is simply free will. Others however are of the opinion that God chooses who will accept. Knowing this area of disagreement, we can then discuss, with true scholarship, what Scripture says on the issue as Christians have done since the beginning. When we ignore the disagreements then we are allowing false prophets/teachings to enter into the church.

Perhaps it is the special operations attitude that I learned in the military but I refuse to believe that Christians should turn there backs on disagreements and allow heresy/apostasy to enter into our Church.

" ... the opinion that God chooses who will accept."

This is irrational, do those who are not 'chosen' simply exist to distract? Its silly. God gave us 'free will', the ability to choose, no matter how difficult the choices are.

but you should understand the biblical support either for or against your decision to turn your back on others.

It is not irrational, I understand how some get to the idea that "God chooses who will accept" although I disagree with the idea. It is no different than the disagreement on what is a sacrament or prayer or salvation, etc. My concern is that too many people have turned their back on these issues which has allowed many false teachings to enter the church. We are not called to ignore false teachings, we are called confront and remove false teachings, prophets, etc. We can only do this by understanding where the mistakes are made and correcting them. So if we do not have true scholarship but instead we just turn away then we end up with things like same-sex relations are upheld as the same as marriage, protecting criminals, etc.

angels and the points of needles.

to dissect and analyze to the point of pedantry is exhausting and resolves nothing as it all comes down to faith.

These issues have not been resolved over hundred of years, obviously better minds than mine could come to no resolution. Tolerance and love thy neighbor will do for me.

We are all called to different vocations. Only one can be all things and that is Jesus the Messiah. I think this is where the disagreements sometimes arise for some are called to evangelize, others to teach, still others to serve, and many of the differences seen are outward signs of the different blessings that God has bestowed on us. Please remember that we are not called to "tolerate" but to "Love the Lord your God, first; then Love thy neighbor, second". That places issues in there proper place with God first.

Flame,

Sorry to take so long to answer you and Crawfish. I've been out of town for a week or so and did not have any access to my PC or laptop. I never use other people's PC's for my on info. I only access what they have availabe.

I have enjoyed your web site. I know you probably have already been to these sites but have you gone to http://www.biblefish.net will come up WeSpreadTheWord.net:BibleResorces.net or http://www.bibelfish.net. Biblefish is all religious information and translations of many religions. http://www.bibelfish.net is a translation site.

I have used these for ever and when they first started they were free. Now somethings are and some aren't.

Like I said you probably already know about them but with the translation site. I need to respond in a different language I usually get back a response that says "I thought you didn't understand what ever language" I just tell them that I said I didn't know the language not that I couldn't respond in it. So far they haven't gotten it. Sometime it's fun.

There are a lot of translation sites. Learn.com is another one I have used.

Like I said you probably already know about them but thought I would just mention them.

Have a great day.

.

Just now got around to actually understanding what you were saying -- I didn't read it very thoroughly. Now I know that what you were saying -- more or less -- is that the MSM would disagree with anything Bush did, even if what he did was change it to something that a democrat would have had in place during his term.

That's true. MSM has no need to check the facts, does it?

By the way, I was checking out your blog, and you've picked some mighty heavy subjects upon which to comment.

Discussions of religion can get somebody in a heap of verbiage. You must have the patience of a saint to answer the comments. Not that they were bad, or, rather, that the ones I read were bad, it's just such a steep subject, and discussions could go on into infinity. I believe everybody pretty much followed your instruction to (in so many words) be nice.

Good luck. And thanks for adding your comment to my blog about China. I appreciate it.

for stopping by. I don't have much patience but it helps when people abide by the request. I know the subject is heavy and will probably continue until infinity. The objective is to realize that people can disagree on some areas but all Christians should have certain key areas that everyone agrees must be there for one to be Christian. I post on Valiant's site and we are having an interesting discussion that is one of those doctrinal disagreements. The nice part is that we both understand that while we disagree, we also approach the arguments from a Christian perspective.

A New Posting at my blog! Don’t forget to vote in Liberal Looney name contest. Her name is Karen Battiest, should she change her first name to Ding or Moon?

and a change of heart can only be acheived through Christ.

Doug, change of heart is started by accepting Christ and why I use the word FAITH as an acronym.

First
Accept
In
The
Heart

I don't know if you read my post about my Dad, but it all ties together. Liberals say such things are passe, I think Liberals are passe :)!

Flame,
I got this in my eamil with orginal story about the illegal that ran down a 12 y/o in MA. I noticed this article and thought you could handle it better than I can. I've never visited this site before but I think I will look it over.


http://www.theacru.org/blog/2007/09/new_jersey_says_methodists_cant_be_methodists/

I still think the world has lost it's mine.

Check with you later.

Thanx for the link. Here is another reason that all Christian denominations need to understand the subtlety and subversive behavior that is being used against them. And why we need to not only look for the absolute principles contained in the Scriptures but we need to reject apostasy and heresy in the Church today. Non-biblical principles abound in the liberal theology taught by many "so called" Christian congregations using only one aspect of God while ignoring the Holiness and Righteousness of our Lord.

Flame,

I think a good bombing of emails, faxes and their blog site posting's about all of their none action on anything and them supporting every pre-vert,illegal and corrupt judge that comes down the pike would be due. Not that they would listen or learn anything but if nothing else we could keep crashing their systems and sites. It would just be a "I feel better thing" for doing it.

Since congress doesn't seem to be able to handle anything but the most petty items,ie: renaming buildings and highways to the same names they already had seems to a big item with them. I heard one of them on a news show bragging about it and the host said but what about this, this and this? A long pause and jump to another subject. The host brought it up again and still(surprise, surprise) no answer.

They all pretty much make me sick anyway. But this article makes no sense at all.

Have a good day.

I'm not much up on the religions of the world, but I was brought up Catholic and have followed those teachings, mainly those of Christ, most of my life. I think that is a commonality with most of the various and numerous religions, but I really don't know. I'm not very learned in that.

An honor to have you stop by. Your input helps to highlight what I am looking for here. Most Christians follow the teachings of Jesus while normally not digging too deep into the denominational dogma (doctrine, beliefs, etc.) That was partially the direction that I have been heading. At the "educated" level, doctrine seems to take precedent over the Bible itself especially what was taught by Jesus. If the Church is truly to be Catholic (fancy word for universal or one) then we need place doctrine where it belongs. I have found that most doctrine arises from cultural or situations that Christianity tries to address in it's people.

Look forward to the postings by yourself and MrPepperhawk here at TH.

Saw over on JC's blog or someone's that you like Irish whiskey. I like Irish coffee and when in London enjoyed quite a few.

You may only see me posting for awhile as I have Mr. P busy to the bone. Poor man is worn out from all the projects I have him working on.

But, we'll both be back in full force once we have this house completely functional.

I will toss in my two cents. I believe that if we love one another as Jesus loved us, we are following Him the way we should. I know it is pretty simplistic, but that is the way I feel. We will all find out if we make the grade eventually. Nice blog Flame.

The main difference that I have in simplicity is I place Love of God first and then love one another. This way it is God who receives the recognition and glory not myself.

Yup, we are told that all will be judged at the eschaton (end) both believers and non-believers. Main difference being that we have hope through Jesus that faith and obedience to God results in our salvation.

Thanks for the visit. I tend to avoid religion as a topic of conversation on my blog, as I'm not sufficiently well versed in doctrine for this format to be conducive (for me) to engage in discussions.

Being of an LCMS bent, I've found myself rather outnumbered--I fail to always remember the diffence between doctrine and practice, as well as the fact that the Almighty does not consult me on "personnel" decisions.

I do, however, appreciate the discussion here.

I understand what you mean about LCMS bent, being of the LCMC bent, I am really outnumbered. :)

Not only denominational differences but also internal to each denomination, I find the focus to be on the "law of man" instead of God. It kinda reminds me of Paul's discussions on the "works of law". That is one reason I started this area because we seem to focus on "our laws" and drift away from focus on God and the citizenship of heaven that is now available to all nations through his Son, Jesus the Messiah (Yeshua HaMoshiach).