Case in point about conspiracy theories: How much farther "down the rabbit hole" have we gone in the four short years since the SCOTUS legalized same-sex marriage after the LBGT and now + P for p*******es said all they want to do is be able to marry the one they "love?"

You didn't understand what I said. Perfection does not come with salvation. Your body id still unredeemed and you'll sin. It's sad the you don't have spiritual discernment to understand the Word of God...

1 John 1:7
but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Why not quit depending on a rosary and start depending on the Word of God. Jesus said:"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him."

Why not read the Word of God and see what it says?

By the way...I'm saved. Read Romans 10:9-13 to see how God helped me accomplish it.

1 John 5:17 (NASB)
17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.
This is easy to interpret. There are two “types” of sins: The sins of the unbeliever and the sins of the believer. Like I said earlier, the wages of sin is death. The sins of both believers and unbelievers lead to death. However, in the case of the true believer, all his sins, past, present, and, future, were forgiven at the cross. The believer still sins because his body is unredeemed. However, he is forgiven as he confesses his sin and his sin doesn’t lead to death.

Galatians 5:19-21 (NASB)
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
I respectfully submit that this passage doesn’t differentiate between what you call mortal and venial sin.

Romans 1:28-32 (NASB)
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, h**ers of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Again, I respectfully submit that this passage doesn’t differentiate between what you call mortal and venial sin.

Corinthians: 6:9-10
Again, you need to dust off your Bible. Is this 1 Corinthians or 2 Corinthians?

Ephesians 4:3-8 (NASB)
3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.
8 Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN."
This passage doesn’t even mention sin.

I’ll leave you with a passage to ponder:

Ephesians 2:1-10 (NASB)
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in our t***sgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

I guarantee you that is not my intention. My intention when using the Word of God is to convey t***h. Only problem is that most don't want to hear it.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires. 2 Timothy 4:3

ALL sin leads to death.

For ALL (emphasis mine) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 (NASB)

For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23a (NASB)

Will you please show me where in the Bible the concept of MORTAL SIN is? It's not in mine.

And I seem to remember something about "venial sin" from my Catholic upbringing. Also not in the Bible.

You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. James 2:19

I couldn't have been plainer.

I've given you a biblical perspective of faith and salvation.

You haven't provided a biblical perspective once. It appears that all you're telling me is how you "feel."

Are you saved? And if so, how are you? Hint...look at Romans 10:9-13.

What about yardsticks?

The nuns were brutal with those when I was a kid.

Kevyn: "Trump colluded with the Russians...click...Trump colluded with the Russians...click...Trump colluded with the Russians...click...Trump colluded with the Russians...click...Trump colluded with the Russians...click"

The only comment I'll make is that it appears that many powers that are supposed to be the states are under the power of the federal government.

Tench Coxe wrote that the Constitution granted little or no federal jurisdiction over many of the activities that were granted to the states. Among them were social services (i.e., care for the poor and health care), education, religion, real estate, local businesses, most roads and other infrastructure, nearly all criminal law matters, and most civil court cases. When people believed government should regulate those areas, the Constitution mandated that they turn to state and local government. No fleeting national coalition would be permitted to dictate to the entire country.

Sounds to me like we're not following the Constitution.

Lonewolf: "Trump colluded with the Russians...click...Trump colluded with the Russians...click...Trump colluded with the Russians...click...Trump colluded with the Russians...click...Trump colluded with the Russians...click"

You have some homework ahead of you…dust off your Bible.

Bottom line: Salvation is by faith ONLY. Works are EVIDENCE of that salvation.

"Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works" is perhaps the most important question in all of Christian theology. This question is the cause of the Reformation, the split between the Protestant churches and Catholic Church. This question is a key difference between biblical Christianity and most of the “Christian” cults. Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works? Am I saved just by believing in Jesus, or do I have to believe in Jesus and do certain things?

The question of faith alone or faith plus works is made difficult by some hard-to-reconcile Bible passages. Compare Romans 3:28, 5:1 and Galatians 3:24 with James 2:24. Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works). Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works. This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his/her life. If a person claims to be a believer but has no good works in his/her life, then he/she likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).

Paul says the same thing in his writings. The good fruit believers should have in their lives is listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Immediately after telling us that we are saved by faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). Paul expects just as much of a changed life as James does: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). James and Paul do not disagree in their teaching regarding salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that genuine faith in Christ produces good works.

gotQuestions.org

You CLEARLY stated, "The Bible very clearly states what all must do to get to heaven."

The Bible does NOT very clearly state that the vast majority of the things you mentioned will earn your way into heaven.

You CANNOT earn your way into heaven. Read Ephesians 2:8-9 again.

Google to ‘actively interfere’ in the 2020 e******ns?
A researcher who has spent more than half a decade monitoring Google’s influence said he believes the tech giant will “actively interfere” in the 2020 e******ns. On Aug. 6, President Donald Trump said his administration is watching Google “very closely.”

https://youtu.be/xN1XmJBDS6s

How Our Constitution Was Supposed to Work: New Evidence Comes to Light
Rob Natelson ~ August 11, 2019
Judging by the promises of p**********l candidates, you might think the federal government is designed to fix wh**ever ails us: health care, education, crime, infrastructure, the common cold.

But the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government such unlimited authority. And neither Congress nor the presidency nor the courts were created to exercise it.

The Constitution fashioned the federal government to address a limited number of activities, contained in the document’s “enumerated powers.” The remainder were exclusively the domain of state and local government and the private sector. This system of divided authority is called “federalism.”

As explained below, newly published documents from America’s founding offer more insight into how federalism was supposed to work.

When the proposed Constitution became public on Sept. 17, 1787, Americans could see that the list of powers the Constitution granted the federal government was a generous one. It encompassed nearly the entire scope of national defense and foreign affairs. It embraced certain key economic functions, such as patents, copyrights, and trade flowing across political borders. It included authority in certain cases to prevent states from abusing their own citizens. The list also included authority to hold the union together.

But the framers recognized that most problems weren’t problems the federal government could, or should, solve. That is why they left most areas of life to the exclusive responsibility of state and local governments and the private sector.

Despite the Constitution’s federal structure, many in the founding generation didn’t think it limited the central government sufficiently. They wanted to be able to govern themselves in their own states and local communities. They didn’t want Congress or federal judges or officials imposing uniform policies on the entire country.

These members of the founding generation had good reasons for fearing centralized power. They knew their history: Concentrated power usually grows into oligarchy or dictatorship. They questioned whether Congress would have the information or judgment necessary to tailor laws for every nook and cranny in the nation. They recognized that when government remained local, citizens enjoyed more say in how it was run. If someone was severely disaffected with state policies, he always could move to a different state.

This option of moving away is a vital safety valve. Without it, there is no practical way to vent anger among persistent political losers. Anger gives rise to h**e: H**e fosters d******eness and repression and, and in extreme cases, civil war.

Indeed, modern federal efforts to impose uniform “solutions” on the entire nation may be a leading cause of today’s toxic political environment.

The perception that the Constitution endangered local self-government was a central reason many Americans—perhaps a majority—initially opposed it.

The Constitution’s advocates knew that unless they reassured the dissenters, the public would never adopt it. So they promised that once the government was functioning, they would offer constitutional amendments to further limit central power. They honored that promise. The amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.

But advocates of the Constitution also adopted another course of action less known today. They gave speeches and wrote articles explaining to the people how the Constitution limited federal power. Sensing the need to be specific, they listed government functions that would be outside the federal sphere. These would be the exclusive province of state governments and the private sector.

The Constitution’s advocates further reassured the public that if the central government passed laws exceeding its authority, the courts would declare them unconstitutional.

Most of the advocates issuing these lists were lawyers. They knew that the courts give great respect to representations about a law from the law’s sponsors.

Some of the advocates who issued lists of nonfederal powers remain famous today. Among them were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall (long before he became chief justice). Others are less known, but their essays were popular during the debates over the Constitution: Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania, Alexander Contee Hanson of Maryland, James Iredell of North Carolina, and others.

Coxe may have been the most widely read among the general public. He was a Philadelphia businessman who served in the Confederation Congress (1789) and later as our first assistant secretary of the treasury.

Most of Coxe’s essays have long been freely available, but four were hidden from all but constitutional scholars. But those four finally were re-published earlier this year.

Coxe’s essays itemize many of the activities over which the Constitution granted the federal government little or no jurisdiction. Among them were social services (i.e., care for the poor and health care), education, religion, real estate, local businesses, most roads and other infrastructure, nearly all criminal law matters, and most civil court cases.

When people believed government should regulate those areas, the Constitution mandated that they turn to state and local government. No fleeting national coalition would be permitted to dictate to the entire country.

Until the 1930s, the courts voided any measure exceeding the federal government’s enumerated powers. During the New Deal, this began to change. Although many believe that the change occurred because President Franklin Roosevelt threatened the Supreme Court, modern research suggests there were other reasons.

In any event, the Constitution’s plan of federalism stopped operating as Coxe and other founders designed it. But reading Coxe’s essays enables us to recapture how federalism was supposed to work.

Where's "BLOCK USER" when you need it?