91Èȱ¬

Speaking as a catholic (small "c" and certainly not Roman) christian, it would seem that Vincent Nichols is the man for the job.

Britain needs someone to counter the humanist and convenient generality that pours from the lips of Canterbury.

I hope he posts here. Pastorphillip seems to have given up on me. He didn't answer even one of my questions to my satisfaction before he left. I guess he's out doing god's work somewhere, saving other soulds I suppose. If I have to depend on him I am surely going straight to hell after I die.

C'mon father Nichols, your archbishopship or whatever your proper title is. Care to take your chances with as hopelessly as incorrigible an atheist as me? Others have tried and failed. Will you step up to the plate? (betcha he won't. At least p-p tried.)

"If I have to depend on him I am surely going straight to hell after I die."

Marcus if we have to depend on pastorphilip, we're all going to hell. pastorphilip will know what I mean and he won't be offended.

William:
I am sending my "best wishes" to the new leader of the 'British Catholics..."...

~Dennis Junior~

No Marcus - I hadn't given up on you! But there's only so much can be said on one topic, subject to my limited time and knowledge.

This thread is meant to be about the new leader for Britain's Roman Catholics, and already we're discussing my share of responsibility for people going to Hell!

However, since you raised it....The Bible tells me that 'God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.' (2 Peter 3v9) God has provided a way to avoid the inevitable result of our sinful nature and practice - Jesus Christ died to pay the price, and we must repent and trust Him.

Peter is right...you'd better be depending on Him - not me!

pastorphillip, I just knew you'd come back. You don't seem like the kind that gives up easily. But I will take help from wherever I can get it. We'll see if the other brand want's to compete in the saving my soul market. (I think they have bigger fish to fry :-)

Now as I read the bible in our last discussion, it seemed to me that in the end everyone will be saved, the only difference is in which order.

1 Corinthians:20 means as I understand it that all who died will come back to life one day, sinners and non sinners alike.

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a human being. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But in this order: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." [c] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

"All will be made alive."

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

So at worst Pastorphillip, I will just have to wait a little longer. But waiting is something I'm used to. Waiting for a plane to take off or land, for a doctor's apointment in his waiting room, for my tax refund check to arrive. What's a few million more years one way or another? Besides, I'll be dead while I'm waiting so I won't even notice the passage of time. I'm almost accostomed to that too already.

I think you'll find, William, that England and Wales is getting a new leader, not Britain. He has no role in the Catholic Church in Scotland.

Perhaps he refuses to eat Haggis. How could Scots accept anyone's teachings if they refuse to eat haggis?