Canada paid 35 million for Pope's visit yet look what they worship in Mexico

[Nefarious Banana]

'My God's tougher than your God' . . . . as blackbird implies.  A sad, rigid, blind blackbird.

[blackbird]

17 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

'My God's tougher than your God' . . . . as blackbird implies.  A sad, rigid, blind blackbird.

I don't make or define who God is.  God is who he is and the Bible describes Him.  You can accuse me of whatever you want but I am only telling you and Exflyer what the Bible says.  Guess lots of people choose not to accept God, the Bible, or Jesus Christ and will end up in hell for eternity.  Not a good choice.  That's perhaps why pride is a deadly sin.  People don't want to admit that they could be wrong and be willing to read or listen to what the Bible says.

Edited April 25, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

The new testament in the bible is the book of christianity.

Jews use the bible too but they also have the Torah

Islam has Qur'an

Buddhists have the Tripitakas

Hindus have the Veda

And other have their own books and believe them and, they all have god..

Your claim the bible is the only true book is misinformed, infantile, demonizing and discriminatory. You are the worst kind of bigoted christian, the kind that used to hang blacks in the deep south under the name of god.

A church began at crucifixion but certainly not all churches.

The bible is but one book that worships god and they all make it clear devotion is the way to heaven.

Your christianity is presumably protestant of which you are minority religion. Again, you failed to answer what sect or cult you are with.

 

I am going to block you. Something I have never done on this forum. You are a disgusting despicable, biggoted, evil person. This is not name calling. This is along held opinion from the posts you have made. The unfortunate thing is I will still see your posts when you respond to others.

You, a christian, my ar$se. The worst kind of christian. The kind that turns everyone off and makes them leave the church.

 

"

Inclusivism v. Exclusivism: Is Jesus the Only Way?

AN ESSAY BYFred Zaspel

DEFINITION

The “inclusivist vs. exclusivist” debate centers on two questions: (1) Is Jesus the only way of salvation? (2) Is faith in Christ required?

SUMMARY

This essay will argue that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation before God and that faith in him is required. We will examine this from the nature of Christianity itself and the need for gospel proclamation. We will then survey the teaching of Jesus and of his apostles as they spoke directly to the question. Next, we will examine related questions, and we will conclude with a brief consideration of some common objections to this teaching.

Introduction

Our pluralistic society scarcely knows a greater offense than that of Christian exclusivism. To insist that Jesus is the only way of salvation and that faith in him is required for that salvation is viewed as intolerant. From their standpoint, the exclusivity assumes the existence of absolute truth, that it may be ascertained, and that it delegitimizes all competing religious claims. The objections against the doctrine of the exclusivity of Christ, then, in many ways mirror the postmodern critique of the older modernist project as arrogant and imperialistic, illegitimately seeking to force an individual’s truth universally on all others.

And yet since its beginning, the church has taken this exclusivist stance. In their own pluralistic world, the earliest Christians insisted that Jesus was the only Savior and that apart from faith in him all is lost. It was an unpopular teaching both then and now. Where did Christians get this doctrine? And why? What is the rationale that makes such exclusivism necessary? Is Jesus the only Savior? Is conscious faith in him required?

Christianity’s Rationale

We begin in broad perspective—the rationale of Christianity itself, its purpose and meaning.

In Romans 1, the apostle Paul famously affirms that every person possesses some knowledge of God—a knowledge of God that entails both an awareness of him (sensus deitatis) and a sense of obligation to him (semen religionis) (Rom 1:18–21). Moreover, as a result of this knowledge of God, there is a corresponding recognition of guilt (1:30). This recognition of guilt is unavoidably obvious, and in response to it—given that all are sinners—it must be actively suppressed (1:18). Yet religion remains universal, and by implication, the apostle provides an explanation for it: all the various religions are attempts to recognize the obvious (God and our obligation to him) and yet reckon with it in manageable ways. Religion exists in its various forms as an attempt to worship God while at the same time “suppressing” the unpleasant entailments—specifically, our guilt and his demands on us.

By contrast, Christianity embraces it all—even the recognition of guilt—and it claims to provide the answer to that guilt—not suppressing it but acknowledging it fully. And it is here we find the rationale for the Christian faith and its reason for being. Christianity proclaims that God has made a way for sinners to be rescued from their sin and restored to fellowship with him through the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Sinners though we are, we may come to God in frank acknowledgement of our sin and through Jesus Christ have full answer to it. Christ the redeemer stood in the place of sinners and provided for them in his saving death and resurrection all that God requires. In his sacrificial death he rendered satisfaction to God, and God gave public approval of his accomplished work in raising him from the dead.

Closely related to this is the (majority) Christian claim that the cross of Christ was necessary—not in the sense that God was obliged to save but in the sense that the sacrifice of Christ was the only possible means of saving (e.g., John 3:14–17; Heb 2:17). The problem of human guilt and the demands of divine righteousness must be answered (Rom 3:21–31; cf. Heb 9:13–26). Justice must be satisfied, and God must be propitiated if sinners are to go free. God can justify the sinner only on just grounds, and only in Christ can these just grounds be established.

This is the reason for Christianity—its very meaning. Christianity is a redemptive religion that proclaims a salvation from God accomplished by his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Matt 1:21). On the very face of it, then, Christianity insists on the uniqueness of Christ as the only savior of sinners.

Only by Christ

This teaching of the uniqueness of Christ traces back to the explicit claims of Jesus himself.

In Matthew 11:25–27, he insists that as the divine Son he has exclusive saving prerogative: “no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

In John 14:6, he both asserts that he is the only way to God and specifically excludes any other means.

In John 17:1–2, in his high priestly prayer, he again claims exclusive saving authority, an authority achieved in his saving work.

In Luke 24:46–47 (in context), he explains that it is on the ground of his saving death and resurrection that salvation has been accomplished and may now be proclaimed.

In Matthew 28:18–20, he asserts that by his death and resurrection all saving authority is now his.

It must be emphasized that to say that Jesus is the only way of salvation is just to affirm what Jesus himself said.

Jesus’s apostles followed our Lord in this same teaching.

In Acts 4:12, the apostle Peter specifically excludes any other way of salvation but Jesus Christ.

In Romans 3:21–26, the apostle Paul argues that God can save only on righteous grounds, and he reasons that only in Christ could this divine requirement be met. Very simply, his reasoning is, “Everyone has sinned; everyone is guilty before God; therefore, everyone needs Jesus because he is the only remedy God has provided.”

In Romans 5:17–19, Paul argues that what was lost in the first Adam was regained in Christ, the last Adam. “Through one man . . . by one act . . . by one man’s obedience”—the exclusivism remains.

In 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul reasons that only one person is qualified to represent both God and man—“the man Christ Jesus.”

In Revelation 5:9, the apostle John records the song of the redeemed unanimously triumphing in the ransoming blood of Christ. The entire thrust of the song is “Jesus only”—he alone, by his blood, has brought us to God.

From the beginning, Christians have insisted that Jesus is the only way of salvation, and in doing so we have but followed the lead of our Lord and his apostles. Christianity insists on the uniqueness of Christ as the only savior of sinners. He alone is qualified to save, and he is the only redeemer God has sent.

Only by Faith

Some have argued, then, that although salvation is only by Christ, some may be saved who have never heard of him and, therefore, have never believed. But once again, Christians have historically affirmed that apart from faith in Christ salvation is impossible. And once again this reflects the teaching of our Lord himself and his apostles.

In John 3:16–18, Jesus (and/or John) affirms both that Jesus is the divine Son whom God sent to save and that any who do not believe in him are already under condemnation.

In Acts 17:16–34, the apostle Paul on Mars Hill addresses “very religious” people and insists that apart from repentance they will not survive the final judgment. Note that although these people were religious, and although they were sincere in their religious commitments, even acknowledging the true God, Paul judges their religion to be wrong—they must repent of it and believe in Christ in order to be saved.

In Romans 2–3, Paul observes that whatever special status the Jews may have enjoyed, they have sinned and therefore need the forgiveness of sins that is found only through faith in Christ. Just as with the pagans on Mars Hill Jews also, though sincere in their religion, will be lost apart from faith in Christ.

In Romans 3:9–10, Paul reasons that (1) everyone is unrighteous before God, (2) the only remedy is the righteousness of Christ, and (3) this righteousness is received only by faith.

Christians have always insisted that Jesus is the only way. This conviction certainly was not one adopted from their surrounding (pluralistic) culture; it was a conviction rooted in the uniqueness of Christ as taught them by Christ and his apostles."

For the whole article:

Inclusivism v. Exclusivism: Is Jesus the Only Way? - The Gospel Coalition

[blackbird]

46 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

'My God's tougher than your God' . . . . as blackbird implies.  A sad, rigid, blind blackbird.

The response to that is stated well in this article which I quote part of to Exflyer above.

Inclusivism v. Exclusivism: Is Jesus the Only Way? - The Gospel Coalition

[Nefarious Banana]

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The response to that is stated well in this article which I quote part of to Exflyer above.

Inclusivism v. Exclusivism: Is Jesus the Only Way? - The Gospel Coalition

Messiah Complex?  

Why are you so intolerant, unaccepting, condescending and condemning of other folks beliefs?

[blackbird]

9 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Messiah Complex?  

Why are you so intolerant, unaccepting, condescending and condemning of other folks beliefs?

Why don't you ask Jesus (God) and read his answer in the Bible.  Did you read the article I quoted?

"Our pluralistic society scarcely knows a greater offense than that of Christian exclusivism. To insist that Jesus is the only way of salvation and that faith in him is required for that salvation is viewed as intolerant. From their standpoint, the exclusivity assumes the existence of absolute truth, that it may be ascertained, and that it delegitimizes all competing religious claims. The objections against the doctrine of the exclusivity of Christ, then, in many ways mirror the postmodern critique of the older modernist project as arrogant and imperialistic, illegitimately seeking to force an individual’s truth universally on all others."

The article answers that question.

Inclusivism v. Exclusivism: Is Jesus the Only Way? - The Gospel Coalition

If you want to understand the subject better, read the article.  If you don't and prefer to keep your mind closed, don't read it.  Nobody is forcing you to read it.  But there is such a thing as absolute truth.

Edited April 25, 2023 by blackbird

[Nefarious Banana]

15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 But there is such a thing as absolute truth.

How do you know that?  People have various and differing 'truths' but they are their 'truths' none the less.

[blackbird]

49 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

How do you know that?  People have various and differing 'truths' but they are their 'truths' none the less.

All I can tell you in a post is I believe the Bible is the truth.  It gives a good account of God's dealings with mankind.  It also gives an account of the resurrection of Christ.  I believe it.  It is not possible for me to just give you a sentence or two on here that would convince you.  It is up to you to study it and find out for yourself.  Everyone is entitled to believe what they want.  I believe the Bible.  Apparently that is a crime with some people.  I see that as very bigoted while they think what they believe is not bigoted.  Christianity is an exclusive religion so it is understandable that those who don't believe the Bible think it is intolerant.  That's just the way truth and error collide.  It is obvious some people will not accept the truth which is in the Bible.  Some people just believe whatever they wish and think anything else is false.  You will have to sort that out yourself by study.  Nobody can do that for you.  I believe heaven and hell are real places and I believe that Jesus Christ is real.   There is also such a being as Satan who deceives people.  Many are deceived as far as I can tell.

Edited April 25, 2023 by blackbird

[RedDog]

Why doesn’t the church pay their own such expenses? There should be a very clear separation of church and state.

[herbie]

20 minutes ago, RedDog said:

Why doesn’t the church pay their own such expenses?

What on Earth makes you think they don't?

[blackbird]

It looks like the 35 million I quoted was far short of the actual amount.

"Pope Francis’s tour came with a minimum $55 million price tag for Ottawa"

"

A family member of residential school survivors says the minimum $55-million price tag for the Pope’s visit to Canada last year feels like another slap in the face for Indigenous people.

“Think of all the money that could have gone to survivors, all of the money that could have gone to healing, all of the money that was rightfully supposed to be given to folks who survived genocide,” Michelle Robinson, who is Sahtu Dene, said from Calgary.

Documents obtained by The Canadian Press under freedom of information laws show the federal government spent a minimum of $55,972,683 for the leader of the Roman Catholic Church to visit Canada over six days last July.

Pope Francis apologized for the Catholic Church’s role in residential schools during stops in Alberta, Quebec and Nunavut.

Indigenous Services Canada earmarked about $30 million. Those funds were to be used for travel, local programs and healing initiatives.

Considering the Catholic Church Vatican is the riches institution in the world worth billions, why are the taxpayers forced to pay for a visit by their religious leader?  Some claim it was a "diplomatic visit" and we pay for diplomatic visits by heads of state.  But the Vatican is not a genuine state in the normal definition.  It is primarily a religious entity that is heavily involved in politics.  They should pay for their own visits.

Broadcast

Crown-Indigenous Relations spent $5.1 million, the majority for a $3.9-million contract to broadcast the papal tour’s stops, as well as translation services into Indigenous languages and French.

RCMP said, as of Feb. 24, 2023, it had spent more than $18 million, which included overtime pay, travel expenditures and accommodation costs. Global Affairs Canada spent about $2 million on travel, meetings and accommodations, plus an additional $35,728 on communication and media relations.

Public Safety Canada redacted all costs from documents obtained through access-to-information requests.

“I think all costs should be public knowledge,” Lori Campbell, the associate vice-president of Indigenous engagement at the University of Regina, said in an email.

Campbell said it’s difficult to put a dollar amount on the harm residential school caused those who attended and the intergenerational effect felt now.

Indigenous children

An estimated 150,000 Indigenous children were forced to attend residential schools over a century, and the Catholic Church ran about 60 per cent of the institutions.

David Chartrand, Manitoba Metis Federation president, said in a statement that the apology was necessary to address historic wrongs.

“There is always a cost associated with hosting any foreign head of state, including Pope Francis, and it’s generally considered as part of the cost of maintaining diplomatic relations,” Chartrand said.

“Regardless, the logistical costs for the apology will never outweigh the price paid by our survivors and their families.”

Heather Bear, vice chief of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations in Saskatchewan, agreed that the apology was important for many people, but it cannot come at the expense of funding for Indigenous people.

“We paid enough. We paid enough with our lives,” Bear said.

Pope apologize

Survivors had asked for the Pope to apologize for decades leading up to the visit, including during a trip to the Vatican by Indigenous leaders in 2009 and last April. The call became heightened after thousands of possible unmarked graves were located at the sites of numerous former residential schools.

The visit was intended to be a result of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action, Campbell said. The commission investigated the legacy of residential schools.

“Although it was important to some that the Pope follow through on the call to action, I don’t know any Indigenous individual personally, old or young, who feels that this was money well spent,” Campbell said.

Some survivors and Indigenous people have said the Pope’s apology on Canadian soil was important to their healing and the process of reconciliation. Others said it fell short.

Francis begged for forgiveness for abuses committed by some members of the Catholic Church as well as for cultural destruction and forced assimilation, but only said residential schools amounted to genocide when asked about it by reporters on his flight back to Rome."

Pope's apology tour cost at least $55 million (aptnnews.ca)

"Public Safety Canada redacted all costs from documents obtained through access-to-information requests."

Why is Public Safety Canada keeping these costs secret?  Don't taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going?

The Vatican is the richest institution on earth.  They should be paying for their own trips, not Canadian taxpayers.  I know the reason we are paying is because Quebec is 95% Catholic and the rest of the country is a significant percent Catholic, and the government has a significant percentage of Catholics.  Media also is in the same fold and nobody questions it.   That's the real reason.

Edited April 26, 2023 by blackbird

[Nefarious Banana]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

 Everyone is entitled to believe what they want.  I believe the Bible.  Apparently that is a crime with some people.  I see that as very bigoted while they think what they believe is not bigoted.  Christianity is an exclusive religion so it is understandable that those who don't believe the Bible think it is intolerant.   

You are the one who is bigoted, unaccepting of others who do not think as you do.  Unaccepting of others beliefs.  I don't believe anyone has slammed the Bible here, but there are some that question the Bible's content. Through the centuries the many translations, interpretations, lost/omitted books, and the constant change of words/meanings, etc. leave the Bible open to interpretation and question(s).  There are some that have questioned you and your motives also.

 

[blackbird]

29 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Through the centuries the many translations, interpretations, lost/omitted books, and the constant change of words/meanings, etc. leave the Bible open to interpretation and question(s). 

That is false to begin with.  The King James Bible New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus.   Essentially that is the earliest collection of New Testament Greek manuscripts that were available at the time it was produced in 1611.  The Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Bible that the Jews preserved down through the centuries.  The idea that there were many translations, interpretations, lost/omitted books is just not a fact. 

There are hundreds of articles defending and explaining the origins of the King James Bible if you take the time to look.

 The King James Bible Defended! (jesus-is-savior.com)

"

Is the King James Bible Inspired Or Preserved?

By David J. Stewart | March 2009 | Updated September 2016

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,
by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." —1st Peter 1:23

       Both! The precious King James Bible is BOTH inspired and preserved. There are some teachers today who say that the King James Bible is not preserved. There are others who say that the King James Bible is not inspired. And some teachers deny both preservation and inspiration. Without a doubt this is a delicate and sensitive issue in churches today, because the Bible is the greatest number one threat to Satan. Yet, if we're wrong on the Bible as born-again Christians, then we're wrong on everything else. There is a raging battle today over the King James Bible."

Is the King James Bible Inspired Or Preserved? (jesus-is-savior.com)

29 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

There are some that have questioned you and your motives also.

Of course there are.  Just as the Bible predicted would happen.  I don't expect to be popular among a group of people who don't believe the Bible and what it teaches.  No surprise there.  My reward will be in heaven, not in this world.  That has always been the case for Christians who stood for the truth.

29 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

You are the one who is bigoted, unaccepting of others who do not think as you do. 

I never said I was unaccepting of others.   I don't accept the false VIEWS of some others.  Big difference.  How do you propose to resolve it when people have opposite views? 

I have been willing to listen and explained things rationally, often simply stating what the Bible says or posting an article that explains it, which you don't seem to read or pay attention to.   You don't accept it.  Your problem is with the Bible or with it's author.

Edited April 25, 2023 by blackbird