Welcome to Gaia! ::

Well, concerning things like the book of Mormon and what not, here are my views. And I am very conservative, but below basically relates how I feel and think towards Christians who have different traditions, rituals, and views on relatively minor things.

(I do not consider sexual behavoir minor, however... as C.S. Lewis said, we are half body, half soul, and intercourse is a binding, mending, and ultimately even a breaking of two souls. Marriage is ment for man and women, but God does not expect us to love somone just on physical and sexual attraction, and that goes for straights and homosexuals. He wants us to love so deep it goes beyond flesh, and I think this is a very high and beautiful and holy calling for people who have troubles in this area, asexuals included. No offense to anyone, but if attraction based on gender does not matter... why can't anyone overlook it, or move beyond it to a place we know is safe? Love to all of you, and again, I mean no offense to anyone, I just wish to state my views in a peaceful and open manner for anyone who wishes to read them.)



I think God allows for different divisions of the "church" as well as different interpertations and what not as a way of reaching more people. Do I believe Mormons go to Heaven? It is about a personal relationship with God, and I would have to say probably just as many Mormons make it as Catholics and Seventh Day Adventists, or just Protestants in general. There is only one truth, yes, but some things God sets up that work for some people might not work for others when it comes to spiritual needs and blessings. But, although we all have differences that divide us naturally, we are not to be divided against each other. If some one sins in the church, we are suppose to cast them out in order to "save their soul", out of love and concern, and from what I've seen, it is also to keep other members from following the same lead. Most divisions of the church do not list sins that are said as sins in the Bible reguarally, things Jesus said would not let you into Heaven. Because of pastors and followers turning a blind eye at this, usually in order just to have a larger congregation, our church is now filled with people who are causing different forms of harm to society, and which Satan often uses to give people misconceptions about the God we serve.
When the Bible says not to add anything or deny anything, I think this is most crucial when it comes to what is sin and what is not sin, and making up rules and regulations which are for the glory or power of Men rather than the glory and power of God.
Ultimately, the reason I think he tells us not to add or take away, is because he does not want himself to be misrepresented. You would not want your friends or children lieing about you or giving misconceptions, especially when the other people's souls are nearly dependent on how your body (the Church) represents you on earth, right?
Most of us are really sad and disappointed at "Christians" that Satan puts in the spotlight that misrepresent us, usually in a bad or rather crazy manner. But they are misrepresenting our Father in Heaven, too.

I have mets Mormons and people of most sections where you could feel the holy spirit and true, unending love within them. You could look at them and tell they have been saved. I think God uses all different people in all different ways for His Glory, and he has a place for everyone. No one on this planet has everything down exactly right, all we can be judged on is by what we do know, and it is only when we reject this that it seems we begin to hurt God, ourselves, and others.


I have been in almost every kind of church, and I see the glory of God from black Baptist churches to very deep ritual-based Catholic churches... He loves diversity, and he loves praise, and he loves people that come to worship him in heart and spirit, without holding back... and just as there are so many different people, there are so many different ways of doing this. He created dance, he created noise, music, silence, joy as well as seriousness. A person can play a guitar to praise God, even if no one else realizes it, God sees they are doing so to please Him, and I believe he recognizes this. Just like if someone was praising God in a different language and no one else could understand them, or if they were mute. Even the rocks praise Him, and I personally certainly do not speek rock 3nodding


That's about it for now on my end, how about some of you guys post? heart

My feelings towards Christians from differing traditions are definitely very different from the both of yours and much less accommodating and maybe even less so than other members of my own faith.

I agree that God allows for different divisions of the church but only because of free will, he allows a lot of things to happen but that doesn't mean it's his will. He built his Church united and did not will it to split off with each taking his word and twisting it to mean whatever they think it should:

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock [2] I will build my church, and the gates of hell [3] shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed [4] in heaven.” (Matt. 16:17-19)


I mean, the whole point of Paul writing his epistles like to the corinthians (for example) is to get the word across...the correct word the way God intended it to be understood. When the early Church went astray and headed in a separate directions what do we find in the bible? Does Paul say, 'eh it's okay, no one can really know go on your way in your personal relationship with Christ?' No. He absolutely did not say that, he corrected them and that's what the Church did back then and still does today. The apostles spread the word:

2:1 You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:1-2)

15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)


We are told to follow traditions taught in both the written word and spoken word but how can we do that if we leave God's Church? How can we say that all Christians are doing that when they all believe and preach different things? We can't outside of God's Church. The early Christians were verbally wrung out for following anything else yet so many Christians have still fallen away from something that is so clearly expressed in the bible, so clearly expressed by God.


Hopefully this helps to explain where I'm coming from when I seem negative towards any Christian tradition outside of the Catholic Church. Most 'Christian' traditions have split off from my Church so they have taken my sacred beliefs and twisted them around to fit their own purposes and then spout them off as correct and the truth but from my perspective all others are taking the word of God and spitting all over it. They have broken away from God's church and are continuing to create their own faith out of words that can be easily twisted around (which is warned against in the bible) and there was only one way to preserve the truth and that's in the creation of God's Church. Why else was the moment the keys were handed to Peter so significant enough that his name would be changed from Simon to the rock that the Church would be built upon?

With that being said, I agree that parts of the truth can be found in other Christian traditions and in other faiths but as you move closer to the Catholic Church you move closer and closer to the truth. I agree that you can find devout Christians in other denominations, but none as devoted as the most devout members of the Catholic Church because they are completely devoted to God and his Church and no other denomination has members who can claim that second part.

That's where I stand as of right now, it may seem harsh or offensive to some of you but you asked for our own views on this.


I'll leave with this:

10 I appeal to you, brothers, [1] by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (1 cor. 1:10)

I think traditions are good, however, it is easy for people to turn away from faith and rely purely on tradition. Tradition can take a faith-based group and turn them into a religious cult, sadly. Now, I love the traditions of the church, I was raised in a traditional protestant church and still attend traditional communion once a week. Different traditions also separate people, and they seem to limit God to a sect of people who follow those traditions. It also seems to create a feeling of religious superiority. I think we should hold true to traditions, yes, but at the same time, I think making tradition the most important thing is not Godly at all, and tradition-based faith is a major force that Satan used to nail Jesus onto a cross. I do respect your views and agree with them to some extent, however, I also see where true Faith appears when there is no tradition for followers of Christ to fall back on. ((The book Tortured For Christ shows amazing examples of this.)) I've sadly known too many people where Tradition has replaced their relationship with God.
((Also, tradition is not just old tradition of let's say traditional catholic and protestant churches, I personally think of tradition as habit. It can make people mistakenly think because they are in a "good" habit, go to church twice a week, in a prayer group, ext., that they are a good or Superiour Christian, and anyone who does not do these things is automatically a less-than person, or because another person's traditions are different, they are automatically wrong and hell-bound.))

But, tradition is not bad. It goes both ways, depending on the individual. It can help people get close to God, or it can take them away from Him, and religion, or even faith itself, is a habit. Prayer turns from true loving time with your Creator to a habit, in some cases. I've met traditional people who were very loving and obviously close to God, and I've met traditional people who were honestly some of the most horrid people I've met in my entire life.... -shudders- The worse thing is when people think that our God is one in the same as man-made tradition.

It's a love hate relationship sweatdrop I love it for it's beauty, yet dislike it for what it can do in order to harm others.

I agree completely.

John 1:42 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter [9]).

That's not a name change?

He's saying in question form: 'so you are this? you shall be called this?

From one name to the other.

I have heard the polygamy arguement so many times, it's ridiculous. It has been disputed so many times and backed biblically and logically, so you really should find some thing else to dispute with me about other than the regular fall backs about the LDS Church.

The Catholic Church claims that Peter was the rock and consequently the first Pope of the church which Christ established. But Peter could not have been the "rock" since, in context, it was promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against this "rock". In Matthew 16:23, just five verses later, Christ strongly rebukes Peter's suggestion that he avoid persecution, calling Peter "Satan". The implications of this are largely ignored by those who hold that Peter was the "rock".... (Answering Challenging Mormon Questions)


It was only in the book of Matthew that the "rock upon which Christ's church would be built. Significantly, the book of John mentions nothing of this announcement. If this event actually carried the importance that the Catholics have attatched to it, why would it have been ignored or imcompletely reported by three of the four gospel writers? (C. Johann Perrie, "What every Christian Should Know", chapter 16)

The original grammer, context, and Greek words for Peter and rock are very important to an adequate understanding of this scripture (Matthew 16:1 cool . The grammer of the verses makes reference to the rock as the way Peter received this truth (i.e. as revealed from the Father by revelation). Also, the first word translated as "Peter" comes from the Greek word "petros", meaning a piece of rock or fragmented stone foundation, so the comparison Christ made was obvious to those present at the time. It was also obvious to Peter.

In Peter 2:3-8, Peter uses a thrid Greek word (lithos), meaning a smaller stone, to describe the position of Christ and his disciples relative to the church. Peter explains that Jesus Christ himself was both a living stone in the overall church and a (petra) rock of offense. His disciples were likened only to the smaller (lithos) stones used to "built up a spiritual house" with Christ himself being the "chief cornerstone" (See. also Ephesians 2:20) Thus Peter and the other disciples were smaller stones in the edifice, but Christ was the principle stone and the sure foundation (petra) of the Church. (Answering Challenging Mormon Questions)


Historians such as John Foxe have recorded the fate of Peter that he was crucified upside down in Rome before AD 68.


Let me add also that Peter denied Christ three times. Wouldn't that be the gates of hell prevailing against him?



EDIT: Sorry I made an error when I used the word "petra" in my earlier posts... the word I was looking for was either "lithos" or "petros" both of which mean smaller stones or pebbles.

The part about Jesus calling Peter Satan can easily be misread. You have to understand Jesus was fully man so he went through temptations just like us. Yet he was fully God as well (I can explain that later) so he knew what was going to happen to him. So when Peter said "This will never happen to you" was Satan tempting Jesus, through Peter, not to got through with it.
Also you are forgetting one of the main staples in the Christian faith which is forgiveness. Obviously given the fact he was an apostle he would have asked for forgiveness. Now the part about the rock thing I don't know what they are talking about for it doesn't make sense to me that Peter would start a church in Rome. It would most likely be Paul that would start it since he was the apostle for the gentiles.