When themeecer was posting on here, that was his point of view. He was a member of the true branch of the true church, so regardless of how bad he was or how good anyone else was, he was going to heaven and everyone else was going to Hell.
If that were truly the case, I would have to tell god that he’s a stupid, illogical sumb!tch.
Fortunately for me I’m not religious. 
Ah, gocha.
Ahh OK, maybe I’ve mislead you. The ‘no church no heaven’ would seem to be be a bit daft, but the ascetic tradition still alive and well in Catholicism, and Protestantism and whatever other ism I would imagine, so that wasn’t really what i was talking about.
What I was really getting at was not literally ‘not setting foot into a church’ but more, for example:
I go to church, I accept God into my heart, but maybe I’m not ready/interested in accepting that Jesus is the Son of God (that was another stretch for me but I understood the idea of faith so was quite prepared to do it but didn’t, and we’ll leave that discussion for now), then I quit going to church because I want to lead a simple life looking after animals, people and stuff, and never go back, never preach, never think about/worship God/Jesus/heaven again. Then I die and go to Hell?
Point of Fact:
God is Illogical, God has an Ego the size of bush’s, and He’s not afraid to say so. Why, just ask my neighbor’s dog.
In all seriousness, I have a semi-agnostic point of view on the nature of God (not by choice, but coincidence): God works in a different manner than we do. Physiologically, mathematically, we cannot honestly say we make sense of Him. Working on this premise (or idea, or set of facts and figures, or words, or whatever) that He functions in a different manner than we, and exists in an equaly different manner, it is unlikely, if not impossible, that we will be able to grasp the concept of Him in it’s entirety. But, I’m not entirely certain that bothers Him.
Bah. Jesus saves, all others roll d20.
Originally posted by Mat
[B]Ahh OK, maybe I’ve mislead you. The ‘no church no heaven’ would seem to be be a bit daft, but the ascetic tradition still alive and well in Catholicism, and Protestantism and whatever other ism I would imagine, so that wasn’t really what i was talking about.
What I was really getting at was not literally ‘not setting foot into a church’ but more, for example:
I go to church, I accept God into my heart, but maybe I’m not ready/interested in accepting that Jesus is the Son of God (that was another stretch for me but I understood the idea of faith so was quite prepared to do it but didn’t, and we’ll leave that discussion for now), then I quit going to church because I want to lead a simple life looking after animals, people and stuff, and never go back, never preach, never think about/worship God/Jesus/heaven again. Then I die and go to Hell? [/B]
I believe the accepting God into the heart is corrolary to accepting Jesus being the Son of God (and at the same time, a literal aspect of Him) and being saved by Him.
As for your question, whether real or rhetorical, in my belief the answer is yes. However, I’m not clear for myself on what in the Bible is meant to be literal, what is figurative, and what is actually both. And also, I’m also unclear on the spiritual “fate” of those never exposed to the Bible, etc.
Originally posted by Mat
do you mean my attitude is more of a protestant thing, or that the quoted attitude I oppose is?
The quoted attitude you oppose.
why do you say that?
It’s a manifestation of the doctrine of Sola Fide, which was one of the key points of the Protestant Reformation.
Thank you. I skimmed it, and’ll go back to it later. Interesting reading, and I’d never heard of it.
Was there not an equivalent doctrine for the Catholic church?
We are god. We are god and we’re pretending we’re these fragile bodies with limited minds. It’s just a ******* game.
Re read what jesus said and only what jesus said with this in mind and it will make total sense. Same goes for Lord Vishnu, the buddha, any free one.
Originally posted by Mat
Was there not an equivalent doctrine for the Catholic church?
No: this was the greatest dispute between Catholics and Protestants, perhaps matched in significance only by Sola Scriptura.
The Catholic understanding differs not just in rejection of this doctrine, but in disagreement with many of the underlying assumptions. The faith in question means, for Protestants, the belief that God will treat them as without sin because of Christ’s action; while for Catholics it means a belief in Revelation, General (the divine truth evident in Creation by virtue of it being created by God) and Special (the divine truth revealed to prophets, through Jesus, and through Tradition). For Protestants, the resulting justification is understood as certain, while Catholics believe justification is fundamentally uncertain. For Protestants, justification is a binary condition, while Catholics believe it to be progressive. Thus, for Catholics, faith (and works) is a development of the soul, whereas for Protestants it is the placing of the person among the elect.
While the Protestant catch phrase is ‘faith alone’, the Catholic one is ‘faith and works,’ where works refers to good actions. Given the various nuances above, though, it may begin to be clear that this is an inaccurate formulation – insofar as, for the Catholic, it is not as if there are two things which are required, faith and then works, but rather one thing, which may be described by the compound phrase faith-and-works. Similarly, it is sometimes remarked that the Catholic position is precisely the Protestant position with the additional belief that something more, good deeds, is also required for justification. Again, following the above, this is incorrect.
They are long and dense, but for the sake of citation see the appropriate entries in the Catholic Encyclopedia for their understanding: Justification and Grace.
Buddhist vs. Daoist
Have you noticed a different approach in kung fu and life between these two peoples and more specifically to the people who post on this forum?
Yes, I know there is a mixture.
[QUOTE=kfson;987350]Have you noticed a different approach in kung fu and life between these two peoples and more specifically to the people who post on this forum?[/QUOTE]and some folks think words are not a manifestation of character and spirit…
not to mention military styles. 
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;987362]not to mention military styles.[/QUOTE]and canadians…
[QUOTE=uki;987377]and canadians…[/QUOTE]
Canadians are god’s gift to humanity!
too many canadians 
[QUOTE=hskwarrior;987401]too many canadians…[/QUOTE]so little time.
[QUOTE=hskwarrior;987401]too many canadians :([/QUOTE]
what choo talkin bout willis!
you got more people in that hophead state of yours than there is in all of Canada.
dang californians. :mad:
[QUOTE=uki;987402]so little time. :D[/QUOTE]
for what? to bow to each of us? I agree. It will take you a while. And shine my shoes will you? thanks. 
The problem with canadians is they look just like regular people.
I’ve noticed little difference in the way Daoists and Ch’an Buddhists approach kung fu if those are the Buddhists you’re really talking about here. Most other Buddhists are totally non-violent and don’t practice any fighting styles.