...love begets love...

[Metaron]

Well, I use the litmus test of Jesus, it generally drives out the deadwood.

as for baptized, I hear that alot, it concerns me as Im not, not that I dont want to, just havent. Problem with not having a home, have to be a guest somewhere, and I dont know how guest status, how it all works.

There is more that Baptism of Water. There is Baptism of Desire (You probably have it, but you should get water-baptized ASAP!) and Baptism of Blood.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Ah, but what’s your definition of ‘love’?

Do you think, for example, that Jesus didn’t love those He drove out of the Temple? How about those He called hypocrites, vipers, whited sepulchres and several other choice phrases?

Or that when Scripture tells us to rebuke our brother if he sins and then treat him as a heathen if he persists, that it’s telling us to stop loving him? Are you saying love is incompatible with robust critiquing?

What I do know is that if I really love someone I want the supreme good for them. That means their spiritual and eternal good more than their physical good, since the eternal and spiritual matter so much more.

Above all - if I truly love someone I want their salvation, and I want them to come to know the fullness of truth. These two things are worth more than any amount of physical comfort, ‘self-esteem’, warm fuzzy glows or anything else you could name.

It’s the opposite of love to leave someone who is in sin or error to wallow in their wrongness. And it’s certainly the opposite of love to do the ‘I’m OK you’re OK’ thing, which for me is the shortest route to their damnation and probably my own for being party to theirs.

Certainly Jesus always deeply challenged those who were sinful, those who had mistaken ideas about God or their faith - see above - as did the Apostles.

you hit it right on the head!

 

[Kitty_Chan]

There is more that Baptism of Water. There is Baptism of Desire (You probably have it, but you should get water-baptized ASAP!) and Baptism of Blood.

I will start another thread so I dont derail this, thanks.

 

[WindyHair]

Ah, but what’s your definition of ‘love’?

Do you think, for example, that Jesus didn’t love those He drove out of the Temple? How about those He called hypocrites, vipers, whited sepulchres and several other choice phrases?

Or that when Scripture tells us to rebuke our brother if he sins and then treat him as a heathen if he persists, that it’s telling us to stop loving him? Are you saying love is incompatible with robust critiquing?

What I do know is that if I really love someone I want the supreme good for them. That means their spiritual and eternal good more than their physical good, since the eternal and spiritual matter so much more.

Above all - if I truly love someone I want their salvation, and I want them to come to know the fullness of truth. These two things are worth more than any amount of physical comfort, ‘self-esteem’, warm fuzzy glows or anything else you could name.

It’s the opposite of love to leave someone who is in sin or error to wallow in their wrongness. And it’s certainly the opposite of love to do the ‘I’m OK you’re OK’ thing, which for me is the shortest route to their damnation and probably my own for being party to theirs.

Certainly Jesus always deeply challenged those who were sinful, those who had mistaken ideas about God or their faith - see above - as did the Apostles.

for me, trying to convert other’s to your version
of religion is the shortest route to war.

 

[Neophyte_Rose]

Ah, but what’s your definition of ‘love’?

Do you think, for example, that Jesus didn’t love those He drove out of the Temple? How about those He called hypocrites, vipers, whited sepulchres and several other choice phrases?

Or that when Scripture tells us to rebuke our brother if he sins and then treat him as a heathen if he persists, that it’s telling us to stop loving him? Are you saying love is incompatible with robust critiquing?

What I do know is that if I really love someone I want the supreme good for them. That means their spiritual and eternal good more than their physical good, since the eternal and spiritual matter so much more.

Above all - if I truly love someone I want their salvation, and I want them to come to know the fullness of truth. These two things are worth more than any amount of physical comfort, ‘self-esteem’, warm fuzzy glows or anything else you could name.

It’s the opposite of love to leave someone who is in sin or error to wallow in their wrongness. And it’s certainly the opposite of love to do the ‘I’m OK you’re OK’ thing, which for me is the shortest route to their damnation and probably my own for being party to theirs.

Certainly Jesus always deeply challenged those who were sinful, those who had mistaken ideas about God or their faith - see above - as did the Apostles.

While I do see your point, I still maintain that we will attract more with honey than with vinegar.

Put downs, insults and the like will only encourage people to avoid us, it will not help them to listen to us.

I can understand that many people are frustrated. But we need to take up our anger, our frustration, in prayer. Not in fighting.

Also, to the person (I don’t know who it was) who claims that they know the truth about Islam and that it’s evil… how would you feel if someone said the same about our faith (and they do)? wouldn’t you just ignore them after that, because they’re obviously not genuinely interested in discourse?.. only in attacking.

All I am saying is, if we are really about saving souls, there has to be a better way to do it than pushing people away from the Church by our own inability to control our tempers.

I think it was well put above: tact. that is what is missing here; tact.

Pax Christi,
Esther Rose

 

[paarsurrey]

All I am saying is, if we are really about saving souls, there has to be a better way to do it than pushing people away from the Church by our own inability to control our tempers.Pax Christi,
Esther Rose

Hi

I agree with you that it is the responsibility of one who invites others to one’s religion to do it in a polite, civilized and charitable way. The discussion is not necessarily to equal scores with others. If one does not know how to do it, one should see what other are doing and learn the above mentioned qualities.

Quran guides about it.

[41:31] As for those who say, ‘Our Lord is Allah;’ and then remain steadfast, the angels descend on them, reassuring them: 'Fear not, nor grieve; and rejoice in the glad tidings of the Garden which you were promised;
[41:32] 'We are your friends in this life and in the Hereafter. Therein you will have all that your souls will desire, and therein you will have all that you will ask for -
[41:33] ‘An entertainment from the Most Forgiving, Merciful God.’ **
[41:34] And who is better in speech than he who invites men to Allah and does righteous deeds and says, ‘I am, surely, of those who submit?’
[41:35] And good and evil are not alike. Repel evil with that which is best. And lo, he, between whom and thyself was enmity, will become as though he were a warm friend. **[41:36] But none is granted it save those who are steadfast; and none is granted it save those who possess a large share of good.
[41:37] And if an incitement from Satan incite thee, then seek refuge in Allah. Surely, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.

Unquote

I know that my Catholic friends don’t believe in Quran. I quote verses for the inherent wisdom in them or for common sense in them, and I know that my friends here are open minded enough to accept the juice of reasoning in them.

Thanks

 

[LilyM]

for me, trying to convert other’s to your version
of religion is the shortest route to war.

Better temporary fighting than eternal damnation

And I can think of a few other routes to war which historically have been just as short - Germany and Britain certainly didn’t fight two world wars over religion.