Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intended Catholic Dictatorship
Independent Individualist ^ | 8/27/10 | Reginald Firehammer

Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief

Intended Catholic Dictatorship

The ultimate intention of Catholicism is the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. That has always been the ambition, at least covertly, but now it is being promoted overtly and openly.

The purpose of this article is only to make that intention clear. It is not a criticism of Catholics or Catholicism (unless you happen to think a Catholic dictatorship is not a good thing).

The most important point is to understand that when a Catholic talks about liberty or freedom, it is not individual liberty that is meant, not the freedom to live one's life as a responsible individual with the freedom to believe as one chooses, not the freedom to pursue happiness, not the freedom to produce and keep what one has produced as their property. What Catholicism means by freedom, is freedom to be a Catholic, in obedience to the dictates of Rome.

The Intentions Made Plain

The following is from the book Revolution and Counter-Revolution:

"B. Catholic Culture and Civilization

"Therefore, the ideal of the Counter-Revolution is to restore and promote Catholic culture and civilization. This theme would not be sufficiently enunciated if it did not contain a definition of what we understand by Catholic culture and Catholic civilization. We realize that the terms civilization and culture are used in many different senses. Obviously, it is not our intention here to take a position on a question of terminology. We limit ourselves to using these words as relatively precise labels to indicate certain realities. We are more concerned with providing a sound idea of these realities than with debating terminology.

"A soul in the state of grace possesses all virtues to a greater or lesser degree. Illuminated by faith, it has the elements to form the only true vision of the universe.

"The fundamental element of Catholic culture is the vision of the universe elaborated according to the doctrine of the Church. This culture includes not only the learning, that is, the possession of the information needed for such an elaboration, but also the analysis and coordination of this information according to Catholic doctrine. This culture is not restricted to the theological, philosophical, or scientific field, but encompasses the breadth of human knowledge; it is reflected in the arts and implies the affirmation of values that permeate all aspects of life.

"Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church.

Got that? "Catholic civilization is the structuring of all human relations, of all human institutions, and of the State itself according to the doctrine of the Church." The other name for this is called "totalitarianism," the complete rule of every aspect of life.

This book and WEB sites like that where it is found are spreading like wildfire. These people do not believe the hope of America is the restoration of the liberties the founders sought to guarantee, these people believe the only hope for America is Fatima. Really!

In Their Own Words

The following is from the site, "RealCatholicTV." It is a plain call for a "benevolent dictatorship, a Catholic monarch;" their own words. They even suggest that when the "Lord's Payer," is recited, it is just such a Catholic dictatorship that is being prayed for.

[View video in original here or on Youtube. Will not show in FR.]

Two Comments

First, in this country, freedom of speech means that anyone may express any view no matter how much anyone else disagrees with that view, or is offended by it. I totally defend that meaning of freedom of speech.

This is what Catholics believe, and quite frankly, I do not see how any consistent Catholic could disagree with it, though I suspect some may. I have no objection to their promoting those views, because it is what they believe. Quite frankly I am delighted they are expressing them openly. For one thing, it makes it much easier to understand Catholic dialog, and what they mean by the words they use.

Secondly, I think if their views were actually implemented, it would mean the end true freedom, of course, but I do not believe there is any such danger.

—Reginald Firehammer (06/28/10)


TOPICS: Activism; Catholic; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: individualliberty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 15,651-15,70015,701-15,75015,751-15,80015,801-15,828 next last
To: FourtySeven

“Whoo boy, you’ve stepped in it now.”

:)


15,701 posted on 11/10/2010 11:48:46 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15700 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; kosta50; Forest Keeper; MarkBsnr
The English translations are riddled with errors.

Look out,here comes the wacky KJV worshipers!

;

15,702 posted on 11/10/2010 12:57:05 PM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15699 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; Forest Keeper
Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us...We do not believe anyone impresses God with anything they do ...By His MERCY and GRACE...See we really do believe it is a gift and not wages earned

But Paul was "all things to all men" (1 Cor 9:22) and  aimed to "please all men in all things" (1 Cor 10:33) by his own admission, telling them what they wanted to hear as long as they acquiesced to his story. At other times, Paul says you have to confess "with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead" (Rom 10:9).

So, here you have to meet certain requirements (conditions) in order to be saved, hence it is not an "unmerited" gift. In other  situations, you may be an unbeliever as long as you are married to a believer and that's enough to save you!  So, here, again, we have a conditional salvation which doesn't qualify as a free gift.

In Romans 11:14 he says "if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them." Again, conditions have to be met, the requirement must be satisfied or nothing. No free gift.

Or what about this: "To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (1 Cor 9:22) Here, Paul is not only implying that it is through his work that some are saved but that it is he who so, through his work, save them!

Then to the Ephesians (2:8) he changes the story and says they have been saved through grace and faith. However, in 1 Thess (2:16) he suggests that preaching (which is works) saves.  At other times he says God had saved the elect before the foundation of the world, so the rest was just going though the hoops so to say. A mixed message, at best.

But speaking of narcissistic, how narcissistic is it for a loving God to demand that the people he saves believe and worship him? And to condemn those who don't? Where is mercy in that? Protestantism is narcissistic because the Protestant God is narcissistic. So, at least in that there is consistency.

15,703 posted on 11/10/2010 1:29:09 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15695 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

though = through


15,704 posted on 11/10/2010 7:03:54 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15703 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Haven’t really followed this thread in a while, but saw this.

“The focus was not on appeasing, atoning, paying off some angry, insulted, God, or satisfying Divine Justice, but on the belief that by dying and resurrecting Christ cheated and defeated death.”

My understanding of this mysterious issue is that of satisfying Divine Justice, illustrating the holiness of God and destructiveness of sin, in which sin is such the antithesis of life that an atonement corresponding to its effects must be made for the sin to be put away, by means of innocent life-blood, And thus “cheat” death of its just prey.

While sins were forgiven before there was the sacrificial system was instituted, and Jesus forgave sins before He died and rose, this was enabled under the rubric of the atonement. And it is an “everlasting statute” for Israel “to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year.” In which not only were sins symbolically transferred to a scapegoat, which would be led away into the wilderness by the hand of a fit man (you don’t want that goat coming back), but the HP was “to kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people,” “to make an atonement in the holy place,..an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.” (Lv. 16:15-22,34)

In the NT this is referred to as a ransom in the person of Christ, and as must you know, it was not Paul who first referred to His word as that, but Mt. 20:28 and Mk10:45, but which i think you say was added later.

How it all works i know not, but what matter is that it works, thanks be to God.


15,705 posted on 11/10/2010 7:37:45 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15586 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
kosta: "The memorial services (panikhidas) are not petitions for God to save the soul of the departed, but services of gratitude in hopes that he did."

Kolo: In the Greek and Arab Churches the Memorial Service asks for God's mercy on the soul of the deceased and is somewhat different from the Slavic panikhidas

Actually, they are not different. The text is the same. I didn't express myself properly and your comment is spot on. What I was trying to say, but it didn't come out that way, was that the service, which is otherwise all about gratitude to merciful God, ends on a hopeful note rather than a petition, beginning with the hopeful May. At the the Dismissal the priest chants

May He Who has power over the living and the dead, Who Himself rose again from the dead, Christ our true God, through the prayers of His Most holy Mother, of the holy and God-bearing Fathers, of all the Saints, assign to the abodes of the Righteous the soul(s) of His departed servants. Give him (them) rest in Abraham's bosom, and number them among the Just, and have mercy on us, for He is good and the Lover of men.

 

15,706 posted on 11/10/2010 7:53:58 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15693 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis

Sorry this has taken so long but work has consumed me.

Do you really think that, after identifying the servant as Jacob, Israel all along, all of a sudden “Isaiah” in chapter 53 drops Jacob, that—is Israel, as his servant, and introduces another one? Just curious.

Isaiah’s four Servant Songs present God’s ultimate plan of salvation: Isaiah chapters 42, 49, 50 and 52-53.

In Isaiah 42, Isaiah presents two servants. Isaiah 42:6-7 describes an individual who is a “light of the Gentiles,” and who opens the eyes of the blind; and Isaiah 42:18-20 describes a ‘blinded servant’ who sees many things yet does not understand. The Scriptures showing the contrast and distinction between God’s two servants follow:

The servant that gives light: Jesus
Isaiah 42:6-7 “I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.”

Lk. 2:30-32 “For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.”

Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,”

The blinded servant: Israel
Isaiah 42:18-20 “Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. (19) Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD’S servant? (20) Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.”

Isaiah 6:9-10 “And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. (10) Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.”

Zechariah 3:8 testifies that the Branch, the Messiah, is God’s servant. “Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.” Isaiah identifies the Branch as Jesus, 11:1-2 “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.”

Jesus quotes this Isaiah passage as identifying himself as the servant; In Matthew 12:18-21, “ Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.”

In the second song of Isaiah 49:1-13, although Israel is named again as the servant (v.3); the writer switches immediately to one greater than Israel. Here, it is revealed that the Messiah has a two-fold task.

1. Bring Israel back and gather the nation to himself (v.5-6). “… And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel

2. . God says: “… I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

These two themes are picked up in the gospels in the song of Mary (Lk. 1:54) and in the statements of Simeon concerning the baby Jesus (Lk. 2:30-32).

The third servant song in Isaiah 50:4-11 identifies the servant as Jesus. Here the servant says, “I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting” (cf. Mt. 26:67, “Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, and in 27:26-30 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.”)

The fourth song of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 again identifies the “suffering servant” as Jesus. Here the servant suffers and dies for the sins of his people (53:5); that he will be led like a lamb to the slaughter (v.7). all this was in the Lord’s will (v.10). (John 12:38, “That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?”; Matt 8:17, “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” and Matt 27.)


15,707 posted on 11/10/2010 7:59:47 PM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15673 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
My understanding of this mysterious issue is that of satisfying Divine Justice...

My understanding is that the early Church saw it as an act of extreme mercy, not justice, that Christ would die for our sins. As St. Isaac the Syrian observed, mercy is an antithesis to justice. God was under no obligation of any higher necessity to undergo the extreme condescension of becoming a human, suffering and being murdered, but made that choice out of love.

The Gospels compare Christ to the Passover Lamb. If you recall, the Passover Lamb is not about  atonement for the sins and therefore cannot be equated with the Temple sin sacrifice. 

Rather, the Passover Lamb was killed so that those kept in slavery could be freed. By analogy, Christ dies so that those held in bondage by death due to ancestral sin of Adam and Eve could be freed (i.e. saved). Hence Easter is called Pascha in the East, meaning Passover.

James reminds that mercy triumphs over judgment. The early Church simply did not hold a juridical view of Christ's sacrifice, some individual fathers notwithstanding. In the west, the juridical view predominates after the 11th century, focusing on the satisfaction of the Divine Justice, which is about as off target (namely the Passover Lamb) as it gets.

In the NT this is referred to as a ransom in the person of Christ, and as must you know, it was not Paul who first referred to His word as that, but Mt. 20:28 and Mk10:45, but which i think you say was added later.

I don't remember, but it doesn't sound right. The early Church held that Christ offered himself as ransom to the devil (Origen, 2nd century) so all the OT righteous could be released from hell.  Death agrees to the exchange and then realizes it cannot hold Christ because he is God. This renders death effectively powerless, and Christ comes back to life, leaving death trampled down and defeated.

IIRC, the NT writers seem to agree that Christ was ransom, but they don't agree if it was for some or for all.

15,708 posted on 11/10/2010 8:59:01 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15705 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi; kosta50
.... The Last Judgment is just what you think it is. In neither event can the deceased sin anymore. In fact, the deceased can't do anything after death one way or the other to effect where he or she will spend eternity. As always, that depends 100% on the mercy of God. (emphasis added)

OK, good. I didn't think there was any disagreement about sinning after departing or in our eternal destination (assuming it's not hot :).

As +Isaac the Syrian said, "'Among all His actions there is none which is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and the end of His dealings with us'"

Does "us" mean all people? If it does, then is what +Isaac goes on to say about justice the equivalent of what we call God's righteous anger (unlike typical human anger) or wrath? If God's justice is people getting what they deserve, then I would think we would be in agreement and are just using different terms.

+Isaac goes on to say: "'Everyone has a single place in His purpose in the ranking of love, corresponding to the form He beheld in them before He created them and all the rest of created beings, that is, at the time before the eternal purpose for the delineation of the world was put into effect... He has a single ranking of complete and impassible love towards everyone, and He has a single caring concern for those who have fallen, just as much as for those who have not fallen'"

Did +Isaac distinguish what might be called "saving love" from other love God shows His creation? Given His omnipotence it doesn't seem to make sense that God could have equal love in all aspects for the saved and damned alike.

On God's Mercy and Justice, +Isaac says this: "'Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves... Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul. As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God's use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy. As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obscured by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of His creatures"

Very different from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", isn't it!

Well, I'm honesty not sure. :) One interpretation of the above would be universal salvation since everyone would seem at some point to be "deserving of good", thus God's mercy (double portion) would outweigh all his sins. But that can't be right. Another interpretation is that salvation is fully earned and is determined by whether it is evident (presumably by works) that EITHER mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, OR justice belongs to the portion of wickedness, since both cannot abide in one soul. But that doesn't sound right either, so I must not be getting his point. :)

15,709 posted on 11/10/2010 10:18:22 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15687 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
FK: As the articles cited indicate, the totality of scripture describes at least three uses of the concept of sanctification

So far I have seen only aorist used; not future tense.

I see this passage we were talking about as indicating the future:

John 17:16-19 : 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

This is a supplication for something to be done both in the future and on an ongoing basis. His word is truth and as we grow in our maturity in His word, so we continually grow in our sanctification.

But since you mentioned it, the veracity of the Bible is a matter of faith, not fact.

I would say perceiving the truth of scripture is a matter of both. I can't imagine even an avowed atheist scientist asserting that there is no historical fact anywhere in the Bible. After that we go right to eyes and ears, etc.

Why should I believe a self-appointed apostle [Paul] on his word?

I'm actually torn on how to answer this. :) On the one hand none is with excuse so you should believe. OTOH, according to the model I follow, it appears that it is simply not your time yet for faith (or its restoration), so there is no reason you "should" believe. I'll have to think about this. :)

I agree that what makes God God is his (presumed) eternal nature which obviously humans can never have. They will still fall short of God's glory, so what is there to glorify?

I would say that it is what we call the remnant of sin. Believers still have sin now, but will not in eternity going forward.

Only God can have free will and never commit sin. Which means, your perfected man will not have free will. How "perfect" (complete) is that?

Perfection for me would certainly include losing all desire to sin forever. If free will for us is only defined as including having the free will to sin then I want no part of it. :)

15,710 posted on 11/11/2010 12:45:31 AM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15688 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi; kosta50

“Does “us” mean all people?”

Yes. +Isaac in saying this is declaring the same faith that so many other Fathers, especially the Desert Fathers, taught, namely,

“God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.” +Anthony the Great, The Philokalia

“If God’s justice is people getting what they deserve, then I would think we would be in agreement and are just using different terms.”

“Getting what they deserve” isn’t a matter of God’s justice. It is a matter of how we react to God’s love.

“I say that those who are suffering in hell, are suffering in being scourged by love.... It is totally false to think that the sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love. Love is a child of the knowledge of truth, and is unquestionably given commonly to all. But love’s power acts in two ways: it torments sinners, while at the same time it delights those who have lived in accord with it” +Isaac the Syrian

I don’t think we are in agreement, FK.

“Did +Isaac distinguish what might be called “saving love” from other love God shows His creation?”

No, not at all.

“Given His omnipotence it doesn’t seem to make sense that God could have equal love in all aspects for the saved and damned alike.”

For Orthodox Christians, it is fundamental that God loves us all equally and that His love falls on us as the rain falls on the earth without distinction as to stony ground or fertile soil.

“One interpretation of the above would be universal salvation since everyone would seem at some point to be “deserving of good”, thus God’s mercy (double portion) would outweigh all his sins. But that can’t be right. Another interpretation is that salvation is fully earned and is determined by whether it is evident (presumably by works) that EITHER mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, OR justice belongs to the portion of wickedness, since both cannot abide in one soul. But that doesn’t sound right either, so I must not be getting his point. :)”

Very early on, some Christians, Origen, +Gregory of Nyssa for example, believed, at least for a while, in universal salvation. But The Church rejects this. +Isaac the Syrian’s writings have been used in modern times to theorize about a sort of universal salvation in arguing that hell will pass away (but I wonder just what those folks mean when they speak of hell), but I don’t believe that +Isaac was preaching universal salvation. He was far too intent on God’s respect for man’s Free Will choices to believe that.

I suppose it is true that everyone, at some point, inclines to God and turns from wickedness and it is certainly true that God’s mercy will ALWAYS outweigh a man’s sins. But if a man chooses not to accept the uncreated energies of God, His mercy and grace and love, God respects that choice. The result is not that God stops loving the sinner or that His mercy and grace no longer fall on the sinner. Rather, as +Isaac says, that love torments the sinner; God’s love, like his Word, is like fire and that same fire of God which comforts and warms the man who loves God, will destroy the man who hates God.


15,711 posted on 11/11/2010 4:54:31 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15709 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

So if the bible contains error, where does your doctrine come from?


15,712 posted on 11/11/2010 5:08:39 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15699 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

“So if the bible contains error, where does your doctrine come from?”

There are a number of sources. The bible is certainly one of them, the writings of The Fathers are others. The devotional and liturgical practices of The Church throughout the past 2000 years and the declarations of the ecumenical and local councils are among the others. Iconography is a source of doctrine.

As for the bible being a source, well you know, R, the canon of scripture wasn’t “closed” until the late 4th century at the latest and even then a number of the books we now include, like Hebrews and Revelation were not universally accepted. The decisions made about what was in or out of the canon of the NT were made based not on other scripture but rather on the the liturgical and theological practices and teachings of The Church which were (and to us still are) considered a sure guide to the true Faith.


15,713 posted on 11/11/2010 5:37:53 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15712 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; kosta50
I suppose it is true that everyone, at some point, inclines to God and turns from wickedness and it is certainly true that God’s mercy will ALWAYS outweigh a man’s sins. But if a man chooses not to accept the uncreated energies of God, His mercy and grace and love, God respects that choice. The result is not that God stops loving the sinner or that His mercy and grace no longer fall on the sinner. Rather, as +Isaac says, that love torments the sinner; God’s love, like his Word, is like fire and that same fire of God which comforts and warms the man who loves God, will destroy the man who hates God.

Outstanding! This makes perfect sense because in order for someone to accept the false "angry God who hates theory" it would mean God would have to be MOVED from love to anger and hate- and we know He cannot be moved from LOVE

15,714 posted on 11/11/2010 5:46:24 AM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15711 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; Forest Keeper; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; kosta50

“Outstanding!”

The Fathers are like that! Too bad more people in the West don’t know them.:)

Nowadays the writings of the Fathers are so readily available that one has to wonder why more Christians, of whatever persuasion, don’t read them and that more priests and ministers don’t look to them for grist for the sermon mill. +BXVI certainly does.

Here’s an interesting factoid about +Isaac the Syrian. He was a member of the Assyrian Church of the East and thus, arguably, a Nestorian, though his writings are completely and sublimely Orthodox and he is, obviously, a saint of both the Latin and Eastern Orthodox Churches.


15,715 posted on 11/11/2010 6:04:36 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15714 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
And eternity, FK, is something that applies to prehistory as well as the future, without the beginning and without the end.

I know, that's why I said "eternity going forward". I figured everyone knew what I meant. :)

FK: Since we often speak of the deceased as being at home with the Lord, I would use the two phrases you quote above synonymously

You yourself said that one can not know if another person is saved or not. Saying that the deceased is "at home with the Lord" contradicts your statement by implying that one does know.

Yes that's true, but I think it is a commonly understood social grace to make the presumption out loud, especially at the time of loss. At those times I think it more Christian to be comforting to the loved ones rather than making fine theological distinctions. :) And, when we talk about someone in general ("Jim went to be with the Lord three years ago and ...") I think it's just a matter of showing respect for the outward signs of salvation that were observable during the lifetime. But theologically, you're right that we say we cannot be absolutely certain.

15,716 posted on 11/11/2010 7:16:41 AM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15689 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
“Outstanding!” The Fathers are like that! Too bad more people in the West don’t know them.:)

Earlier you said the bible contains errors... do not the fathers also contain errors? They do not even agree with each other on many items...

15,717 posted on 11/11/2010 9:23:17 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15715 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
FK: Whether the elect sin or not is irrelevant concerning their salvation, but there are temporal consequences here on earth.

Big deal. What can here on earth match the guaranteed limo ride to heaven to cause one to change his ways?

Frankly, nothing. :) But what must be remembered is that it is NOT the threat of temporal punishment or the assurance of salvation that motivates us to change our ways. What motivates us is God's unmerited grace given to us which changes our hearts. So, the motivation to change our ways is already there before we are even aware of our assurance of salvation.

FK: Of course we would say that our sinning matters to God. God says He hates sin.

That's like a billionaire living in a dump and saying he hates it! Why doesn't he make the sin just go away?

Good question. He could, He doesn't, and I have no idea. For some reason it simply serves His purpose that some number of the elect spend time here on sinful earth first. I truly look forward to learning the answer.

FK: We have to make the distinction that post-conversion sins do not cancel the salvation of the elect because of the promises of Christ. If Christ was a liar, then those sins could cost us our salvation. But this doesn't make those sins meaningless. They have consequences and God will definitely and many times painfully discipline those He loves.

Baloney, FK. The Bible is full of examples that God ordered destruction of children.

I don't see any contradiction. God determines the times of death for the saved and lost alike. When God ordered the deaths of children we cannot know if it was as a matter of judgment or salvation. God only disciplines believers, so if the children were young enough then having them killed could not have been a matter of discipline.

Religious nuts tell us that God sends hurricanes to tsunamis to "punish" the world.

I am one who cringes when I hear pastors claiming to know for sure the reasons behind such things as what we call natural disasters or epidemics or famines, etc.

Even some Church Fathers believed these were 'pedagogic" punishments for a "greater" good. Killing innocents for a greater good...beginning with the Flood...and still no improvement.

Well, since the Fall there have been no true innocents aside from Christ. In any case, though, I think instruction could have easily played a part in it. Surely the fear of God among the Israelites and others grew as the stories spread, at least for a time. Now, accounts such as the Flood help to show us the nature of God. But I don't think it was an exclusive reason. As for improvement I'm not sure how we are supposed to judge that. Sure, we still sin just as they did in the OT, but all of God's actions in the OT led to the coming of Christ. That is certainly an improvement. :)

In God's eyes Andrea Yates and Hitler could be as "innocent" as Mary.

In terms of their natures at conception, they ARE all equally "innocent". All have need of a Savior and none is deserving. If we want to compare them all we can do is make reasonable guesses based on the confessions they have made backed by the fruit they have borne. That makes Mary look very good and the others not so much. :) Of course God alone holds the discretion to save whomever He wants.

Saying it's a relationship does not describe Protestant mindset. Everything is a relationship, FK. It's how we deal with the world. Protestant mindset is defined and shared by other Protestants in an organized manner and shared tenets of faith. That makes it as religion.

I have to disagree because I think it's axiomatic that there are plenty of professing "Christians" who go through the motions of performing "religious acts", but really have no direct relationship with Christ on a personal level. (I am talking about people belonging to all Christian faiths, including Protestants.) They go to church because they "have to" or they say they believe in Christ because "why not, if it's real that's the side to be on". These are people who do not really bear the fruit of a changed heart because there is no relationship. Anyone can PRACTICE a religion, but that is different in my mind from LIVING a faith.

In addition, describing Christianity as a religion puts it in the same bucket as any other of the world's religions. I would say this is wrong because a core tenet of Christianity is its exclusivity as the one true faith in the one true God. The Bible describes many who had a direct and personal relationship with God Himself, and so also do Christians today. I am unaware of another faith that makes the same claim in the same way. That's why I make the distinction.

15,718 posted on 11/11/2010 9:52:54 AM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15690 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

“...do not the fathers also contain errors?”

They certainly do, R! Orthodoxy makes no claim that any individual is infallible. It’s one of the main differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

And the Fathers disagree among themselves on various matters. But there is a consensus of teachings among the Fathers on many subjects and that consensus is among the foundation stones of the Faith.


15,719 posted on 11/11/2010 9:56:51 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15717 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

So then the EO has no infallible authority huh?


15,720 posted on 11/11/2010 9:58:00 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15719 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; RnMomof7
It still doesn't answer: why did Jesus need to be sanctified?

I don't think the Bible indicates there was a "need". Jesus said Himself:

John 17:19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

That explains why. Christ consecrated Himself to the Father and as a consequence that holiness spread to the elect through the Spirit. See also:

1 Cor. 1:30 : It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

God says to his people "be holy because I am holy." He doesn't say "I make myself holy so that you may be holy."

He says both, but in different contexts. The first just describes the result without explaining the "how". The second explains what makes us able to be holy. It is not a command of something we can do of ourselves, but rather an encouragement of having the right mindset in experiencing God working through you.

Only someone who is not sanctified can become sanctified.

That is only if the concept of sanctification is a one time event. The Bible says it isn't. Believers become more and more sanctified as they mature in the faith.


15,721 posted on 11/11/2010 10:19:38 AM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15691 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

“So then the EO has no infallible authority huh?”

Oh, we have an infallible authority, just no infallible individuals. Ecumenical Councils can and have declared infallibly Christian dogma. Interestingly, we know that declared dogma is true, however, only if the Laos tou Theou, the People of God, accept the dogma and live it out in their lives as Christians. We believe this because we do not believe that the Holy Spirit, given to The Church at Pentecost, will allow the Body of The Church to fall into error.

Here’s a link to the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in Reply to a Letter of Pope Pius IX. The letter is a reply to the Pope’s claim of absolute authority over the entire Church. They disagree. What you may find interesting is the discussion of dogmatic authority within The Church. It is rather more polemical than one would read today. So was the letter from the pope. But the principles enunciated by the Patriarchs are as true today as when they wrote them.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx


15,722 posted on 11/11/2010 10:23:28 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15720 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; kosta50; RnMomof7

Kosta: “Only someone who is not sanctified can become sanctified.”

FK: “That is only if the concept of sanctification is a one time event. The Bible says it isn’t. Believers become more and more sanctified as they mature in the faith.”

If “sanctification” is the western equivalent of theosis, then certainly it is a process, at least for the overwhelming majority of us. Or is sanctification not theosis?


15,723 posted on 11/11/2010 10:28:55 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15721 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis
The servant that gives light: Jesus...

The servant that gives light is Israel, the wisest nation on earth who will lead and teach the gentiles (Deut 4:5-8; Zech 8:23), because Jews are called to be the light of the nations (so the world would know the God of Israel through them). You should know that since the New Testament even says so: "salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22)

The blinded servant: Israel...

No, it's the blindness of the people. Take for example Isa 52:15 where he makes it very clear that the Servant will cause the Gentile kings to see and hear, so how can the Servant be "blind and deaf?"

The fact that the Servant is Israel is in all the references I gave you previously: the Servant is identified by name numerous times and it ain't Jesus. You choose to ignore all of them and interpolate through the New Testament (specifically only through Luke, who is not even Jewish or an eyewitness to Christ, and whose Gospel exists in two versions) that it is all about Jesus, writing at least 400 to 500 years after the fact. 

The problem, better yet, the futility is that you attempt to "prove" that Isaiah is about Jesus through the New Testament, written by fanatical Jesus followers decades after Jesus died. This is like Daniel (the last Old Testament book to be written, in the 2nd century BC) writing "prophesies" as if he were writing them 400 years prior! Or, like using the Book of Mormon to "prove" the "veracity" of the Mormon interpretation of the New Testament. Or the Muslims claiming to have the "last" revelation through the Koran.

But Isiah's vagueness is a gold mine where one could imply anything, especially after the fact and knowing there are no other historical sources to verify any such allegations. Taken on blind faith, such allegations then become internal self-serving "proof" of "prophesies" that have no external corroboration.

If Isaiah simply cannot be proven on its own (and it can't) that it is about Jesus without acceptiong the New Testament on blind faith, then it is not about Jesus, but is made to be about Jesus. It becomes a retro-egineered "proof" for a specific agenda. The New Testament was written so as to agree with the Christian interpretation, because Christians had an agenda and a motive to do so.  This is not unique. Daniel was written "prophetically" after the fact as well. This is a trick used by ancient writers, to "prove" their credibility. It works for the gullible.

Some of the parallels with Jesus based on the New Testament in reference to Jesus are both supported and contradicted by the same New Testament. For example, it is said that the suffering Servant will be quiet like a lamb, and the synoptic Gospels seem to support this. But John's Gospel doesn't!

And speaking of the Servant, Isaiah 53:10 says "But the LORD was pleased [sic] to crush Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering, he will see His offspring [!] and will prolong  His days [!]...

Isaiah 53:11 suggests that it is through the Servant's knowledge, not faith in him, that many will be justified. Etc., etc...

I was just curious to see what evidence you had that Isaiah was about Jesus and your evidence is the New Testament, specifically Luke, not Isaiah. To me, that is no different than someone quoting the Book of Mormon to "prove" the LDS interpretation of the New Testament. This is no different than Paul saying Christ commissioned him and you must take him on his word. Or that anonymous Gospel writers were really who the Bible says they were. It is like me telling you there are pink unicorns on Jupiter because I know it, and I wrote about it.

15,724 posted on 11/11/2010 10:40:01 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15707 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; kosta50; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi
Priest: O God of spirits and of all flesh, You have trampled down death and have abolished the power of the devil, giving life to Your world. Give rest to the soul of Your departed servant in a place of light, in a place of repose, in a place of refreshment, where there is no pain, sorrow, and suffering. As a good and loving God, forgive every sin he has committed in thought, word or deed, for there is no one who lives and is sinless. You alone are without sin. Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your word is truth. (emphasis added)

What about Mary?

15,725 posted on 11/11/2010 10:56:22 AM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15693 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; RnMomof7; Forest Keeper
Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us...We do not believe anyone impresses God with anything they do ...By His MERCY and GRACE...See we really do believe it is a gift and not wages earned

But Paul was "all things to all men" (1 Cor 9:22) and  aimed to "please all men in all things" (1 Cor 10:33) by his own admission, telling them what they wanted to hear as long as they acquiesced to his story.

Kosta, i am bit surprised at you in this, as surely you must understand context as well as Paul's testimony. Paul elsewhere expressed that he was not going to compromise his message even if it meant persecution, (Gal. 5:11), which it typically did, and having chastened the Corinthians for their liberal inclusiveness (1Cor. 5) which made them sorry, and among other warnings, having excluded impenitent sinners from the kingdom, (1Cor. 6) he is not about to tell them to tell people whatever they want to hear as long as they believe the gospel! Which gospel would not even be consistent with what he preached, unless you want to cut and paste things to fit your construct, as he called sinners to repentance. (Acts 26:20)

In the chapter at issue, Paul defends his apostleship and (tough) love for them by recounting his manner of life, in which he adapts to persons and cultures as regards his Christian liberty which was the subject of the preceding chapter, and which relates to non-moral aspects. In making himself a “servant to all,” (v. 19) he forsakes his liberty so that with the Jews he was kosher, and made himself as one under the law (going to synagogues, etc.) To them that were without law he was not kosher, but “without law” does not mean was an Antinomian, but just the opposite as he established in Rm. 6 and addressed in Gal. 2:18, as being under the law to Christ was the supreme standard. Thus Paul condemned violations of the moral law. To those who converts were “weak, meaning in faith, having scruples as regards ceremonial law, and which he addressed in Rm. 14 and 1Cor. 8:7-12, he took care not to offend them, in accordance with his instructions on such. While Christians can eat pork etc. it is no compromise not to, like as in observing cultural taboos against it, while adopting non-moral customs such as native dress is not sin (unless immodest).

At other times, Paul says you have to confess "with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead" (Rom 10:9).

There was no change in message. First, as relates to the above, if you study Paul's missionary preaching, one can clearly see adaptation in method, not in the essential message. To the Jews he used Scripture, (Acts 13) to the illiterate barbarians he appealed to natural revelation and the miraculous, (Acts 14:6-18) while to intellectual pagans he used reason and invoked a line of truth from one of their own poets. (Acts 17) But in all of these were calling souls to repentance toward God and and faith in the LORD Jesus, (Acts 20:21) though in Acts 14 he could not get as far as the latter.

And as far as Rm. 10:9, it is true faith justified, but faith, like love, is not something abstract from life, but determines how one lives, and the only kind of faith that saves is one that is confessional in nature, in word and in deed, and thus baptism was the typical “sinners prayer” in body language. (And contextually, it often took a lot of years off your physical life expectancy.) Thus this is entirely consist with Paul's statement that he preached “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:21) God-given faith is what is counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4) but Paul makes it very clear that this is Abrahamic type faith, characterized by “the obedience of faith” and repentance when convicted or not doing so. Thus Paul's discipline in 1Cor. 5, and his exclusion of “fornicators” etc. in 1Cor. 6:9,10 does not simply apply to heathen ones, and a father has “denied the faith” who does not care for his own family, (1Tim. 5:18) and he states there are “things which accompany salvation.”

So, here you have to meet certain requirements (conditions) in order to be saved, hence it is not an "unmerited" gift.

As for the “free” aspect, which i understand is the real issue, “free” is used as opposed to wages earned, not that no response is required, which is really an extreme view outside the Bible as well. The free aspect relates to the fact that you have a gift offered which you cannot merit but is offered on Christ's expense and merit. What is received by the response is not merited by the response, while it is God who gives that faith (Eph. 2:8,9) and grants repentance (Acts 11:18). If you offered me a million dollars for “nothing“ i would not say it was not free if i had to come to you and open up my closed hand to receive it, even more so if you had to convince me to do it.

This use of “free” as without a purchasing price but which requires a response is nothing new: "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." (Isaiah 55:1)

In other  situations, you may be an unbeliever as long as you are married to a believer and that's enough to save you!  

Is that an infallible interpretation (are you in the chair)? You are reading too much out a verse. The idea that one's household is “sanctified” and not “unclean” is a Jewish one, but it did not make ones sons saved, (“Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial:” 1Sam. 2:12). And Paul's affirmation of Timothy's salvation was not because he had a believing mother, but because he was “persuaded” that that faith was in him also. (2Tim. 1:5) It was normal for families to follow the father's lead in faith, but the requirement for baptism require repentance and whole-hearted faith. (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) And that was Paul's message. (Rm. 6:17)

So, here, again, we have a conditional salvation which doesn't qualify as a free gift.

Again, it does as it is not earned. To repeat, the conditions necessary to receive a free unmerited, unearned gift do not earn it. God convicts souls of their need, often by preaching, and grants repentance and gives faith, though i believe man's will is involved, but that does not earn the gift. Calvinists believe regeneration precedes the faith response, but still, if a doctor convinces a man against his normal will (making him willing) to assent to an operation that saves his life, i do not think the patient can take any credit for it, as left to himself he would have chosen the way of death.

In Romans 11:14 he says "if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them." Again, conditions have to be met, the requirement must be satisfied or nothing. No free gift.

Again, a skewed and unBiblical idea of free. Yet if you are supposing becoming jealous is necessary to be saved, the you can be... right, in the sense that seeing God work and change the lives of despised Gentiles can move a Jew to humble Himself a sinner, and thus Jesus remarked that hookers went into the kingdom of God before the Jewish hierarchy. (Mt. 21:31) Thus God works to moved soul to faith, if they yield.

Or what about this: "To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (1 Cor 9:22) Here, Paul is not only implying that it is through his work that some are saved but that it is he who so, through his work, save them!

Surely you understand that expressing yourself as an instrument in bring souls to receive the gift of salvation is not the same as saying you actually save them. Thus 1Cor. 15:10. The persons who persuades and directs villagers to a free vaccine that will save their lives can be said to have saved them, though the vaccine did so, and it was free, except in an extreme formal sense some want to restrict it to.

Then to the Ephesians (2:8) he changes the story and says they have been saved through grace and faith. However, in 1 Thess (2:16) he suggests that preaching (which is works) saves. 

The preacher tells of Gods salvation to the Gentiles, eating with “sinners,” and they believe on the LORD Jesus for a salvation they need but cannot earn. The preacher tells Jews of the grace the Gentiles have realized, angering some who see themselves as the elect, which is what Jesus did, (Lk. 4:16-30) so they may humble themselves and be saved. None of this is contrary to salvation being a free gift, nor does is constitute a different message.

Again, salvation is a gift of God because it cannot be merited, but a God-enabled response is necessary to receive it. In order for that to occur preaching is often employed, for faith comes by hearing the word of God, thus “"Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved (1Thess. 2:16) prevented them from acting in faith. Working as an instrument by which souls may be saved by receiving the gift the preacher tells them of is not salvation by works. God chooses to employ men in persuading men to receive the unmerited gift, by a God-enabled choice.

At other times he says God had saved the elect before the foundation of the world, so the rest was just going though the hoops so to say. A mixed message, at best.

Paul is not mixed up at all, though his words are often wrested. (2Pt. 3:16) Here, believers in Christ such as the ones in my illustration having been “chosen us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4) or “elect according to the foreknowledge of God,” (1Pt. 1:2) does not mean they need not make the response the gospel requires to receive the unearned gift, but that they were chosen to do so. Likewise Jesus being “slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rv. 13:8) The basis by which they were chosen is the big debate.

15,726 posted on 11/11/2010 11:13:17 AM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15703 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; RnMomof7; Forest Keeper
<But speaking of narcissistic, how narcissistic is it for a loving God to demand that the people he saves believe and worship him?

Even on a theoretical level a perfect being can be utterly unselfish in calling for such, if that is what is best for his subjects. The Bible states God needs nothing, (Act 17:25; cf. Ps. 50:8-13) and it just so happens that believing in and worshiping this infinite and perfect being, versus making finite and or imperfect created things your god, is what is best for man. Your life is determined by what you worship, and your ultimate object of affection, and source of security, is our god. God not only needs nothing but He gains nothing by man's submission, but is completely benevolent in calling volitional beings to love and worship you, as that would be best for them.

Moreover, what you choose reveals what you really love and esteem. (Jn. 3:19-21) And for choice to be meaningful, there are things to choose between. Thus God calls men to “choose ye this day whom ye will serve;” (Josh. 24:15) created things as your god or the eternal Creator. (Acts 14:15)

And to condemn those who don't? Where is mercy in that?

As those who do not choose the light — who ultimately do not want Christ, “God manifest in the flesh,” over sin — manifest that they love darkness, thus their damnation is just. They would be happy in Heaven even if they could go there. Yet if God forced conversion then men would also object, which would be the case if He made faith in Him so utterly overwhelming that no one could not find anything by which they may rationalize unbelief.

...Protestantism is narcissistic because the Protestant God is narcissistic. So, at least in that there is consistency.

It is not just the Protestant God who is misconstrued, and in the Bible God is constantly giving, giving man both good things and good laws, which He misuses and breaks, and then God gives a way back, finally by giving that His most Beloved, His own Divine Son, who gave Himself in service day and night, and finally gave Himself for our sins, even becoming was He hated, to save even souls who rail against them, once they come to their senses. And to believe in Him is to be just the opposite of narcissism, that of living for Christ out a motivation of love for Him for what He is and has done, and for the good of others. Not to gain eternal life, but because we are given it. And as we follow Him who bore our sins in His death, we should be willing to go to Hell if that would serve that purpose, as our examples of Moses and Paul were, thank be to God.

15,727 posted on 11/11/2010 11:31:35 AM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15703 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper

“What about Mary?”

+John Chrysostomos said she did indeed commit sin. Panagia was born as human as you and me. Her nature was as fallen as all mankind’s. In other words, she had the same propensity to sin as the rest of us. If she were different from us in that regard, her Son, Christ, would not be True God and True Man. She, however, attained a state of perfect theosis by her cooperation with and total submission to the grace of God. Because we and she are not God, while we Orthodox believe that she committed no voluntary sins in her life, she may very well have committed involuntary ones for which we Orthodox Christians also ask for forgiveness. Thus we have the line, “...for there is no one who lives and is sinless. You alone are without sin.”


15,728 posted on 11/11/2010 12:19:19 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15725 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis

“I was just curious to see what evidence you had that Isaiah was about Jesus and your evidence is the New Testament, specifically Luke, not Isaiah”

As I said, it looks like Zechariah 3:8 testifies that the Branch, the Messiah, is God’s servant. “Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.” Both Isaiah and Jeremiah identify the “Branch” as a descendant of Jesse. Isaiah identifies the Branch as Jesus, 11:1-2 “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.”

Jer 23:5 “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.” Jer 33:15 “In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.”

No where in the scriptures is Israel mentioned as the “Branch”; only the Messiah.

Israel has not had a king of the lineage of Jesse since the time of the exile during Jeremiah’s prophetic life. Jesus has been identified as the descendant of Jesse who will be king.

Further, Jesus quotes this Isaiah passage as identifying himself as the servant; In Matthew 12:18-21, “ Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.”

This is a quote from an eye witness to the testimony of Jesus.


15,729 posted on 11/11/2010 12:21:44 PM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15724 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Spoken like a lost man that has never known Christ or had the ability to read scripture with understanding


15,730 posted on 11/11/2010 2:03:39 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15703 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Kosta, i am bit surprised at you in this, as surely you must understand context as well as Paul's testimony.

Why are you surprised???? Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.. they are foolishness to the perishing

15,731 posted on 11/11/2010 2:05:49 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15726 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; kosta50; stfassisi; D-fendr

“As I said, it looks like Zechariah 3:8 testifies that the Branch, the Messiah, is God’s servant. “Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.” Both Isaiah and Jeremiah identify the “Branch” as a descendant of Jesse. Isaiah identifies the Branch as Jesus, 11:1-2 “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.””

Good one, b-d. The Syrian Orthodox (who are non Chalcedonians) interpret Zechariah in the same way.


15,732 posted on 11/11/2010 2:16:26 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15729 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Ecumenical Councils can and have declared infallibly Christian dogma.

Based on WHAT

We believe this because we do not believe that the Holy Spirit, given to The Church at Pentecost, will allow the Body of The Church to fall into error.

Paul did not believe that, He warned against error and false teachers entering the church

2Cr 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

2Cr 11:13 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Neither did Peter

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

John did not believe that

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Jude was very clear in his warning

Jud 1:3 ¶ Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jud 1:5 ¶ I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these [filthy] dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.Jesus warned us

Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

The EO may claim they do not have an infallible man ...but the men of those councils are credited with infallibility IF THEY HAVE NO FINAL INFALLIBLE MEASURING ROD for that doctrine.. it is nothing more than the doctrine of men

15,733 posted on 11/11/2010 4:53:45 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15722 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Ecumenical Councils can and have declared infallibly Christian dogma.

Based on WHAT

Funny how that works. First they declare THEMSELVES infallible. Then they declare their beliefs infallible.

Who can argue with such a fallible-proof system...

15,734 posted on 11/11/2010 4:58:52 PM PST by smvoice (Defending the Indefensible: The Pride of a Pawn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15733 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

LOL...exactly


15,735 posted on 11/11/2010 5:00:22 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15734 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
"Paul did not believe that,

Neither did Peter

John did not believe that"

But R, the men who decided for you and all Christians that Paul and Peter and John and Jude, and Matthew and Mark and Luke for that matter, were worthy of belief believed exactly that.

15,736 posted on 11/11/2010 6:28:01 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15733 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

Bingo. But that has not been loosed in Heaven.


15,737 posted on 11/11/2010 7:36:18 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15734 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper
FK: “What about Mary?”

Kolo: +John Chrysostomos said she did indeed commit sin. Panagia was born as human as you and me. Her nature was as fallen as all mankind’s.

FK, the Eastern Church does  not believe in Mary's immaculate conception, so her nature is equally fallen,  as the rest of Adam's descendants, even if she dis not commit any personal sins. She still had the "maucla" (spot) of Adam's sin. Christ doesn't.

But Roman Catholics believe otherwise, and for that reason you won't hear a Roman Catholic priest chant with regard to Jesus  "for there is no one who lives and is sinless. You alone are without sin" precisely because someone would ask "What about Mary?"

The Roman Catholic dogma of Immaculate Conception implies that, besides Jesus, Mary was born ontologcially like the pre-Fall Eve, and supposedly remained in that state during her earthly life. The East believes that she was cleansed of all sin (basically baptized by the Spirit) at the Annunciation, and made an 'acceptable vessel," and that, being under special grace, she sinned not since.

15,738 posted on 11/11/2010 7:52:49 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15728 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis
As I said, it looks like Zechariah 3:8 testifies that the Branch, the Messiah, is God’s servant.

The Jews don't dispute that Zechariah and Isaiah hints at a (king) messiah (remember rabbinic Judaism that survived is the Pharisaical Judaims of Jesus' times, and they were messianic/apocalyptic believers in a messiah; they just think it was him!  And your evidence does not prove that it is Jesus without reaching for the New Testament! What kind of a "proof" is that, and how can anyone blame the Jews, given that they didn't have the NT!?

15,739 posted on 11/11/2010 8:04:25 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15729 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Which presupposes that those thru whom Scripture was written and entrusted, are its infallible interpreters. Which logic would require us to become Jews. And yet God preseved the faith among a remnant despite the failures of those who sat in Moses seat, even it meant sovereignly raising up prophets who reproved them and died for it.

Also, the NT evidences that believers recognized writings as Scripture without a assuredly infallible magisterium. (IM)

I see such writings becoming established as from God like a true man of God is - some being more evident than others - by enduring qualities and Divine attestation and from those who likewise have such. Which of course presumes a standard for such.

Councicular decrees ratified what became manifest as being bread from Heaven, and their testimony was instrumental, but it was the qualities and effects that progressively made them “classics from heaven” and what resulted in their enduring acceptance as such.

And as those who hold to Scripture as supreme (versus those who effectively have a higher authority) (but not the solo source of info) are most universally united in (and contend for) the core doctrines we agree with Rome about, as those of the Nicene creed, it attests that we can affirm that Rome can teach infallible Scripturally warranted doctrines.

The main issue here is not simply teachings which we most universally see as failing that warrant, but the formulaic assured status of the IM. And i do understand that you are not a RC., but seem like a reasonable man.


15,740 posted on 11/11/2010 8:06:37 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15736 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
And your evidence does not prove that it is Jesus without reaching for the New Testament! What kind of a "proof" is that, and how can anyone blame the Jews, given that they didn't have the NT!?

How can the NT compare with the live testimony and miracles of Jesus Himself?

15,741 posted on 11/11/2010 8:08:48 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15739 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Spoken like a lost man that has never known Christ or had the ability to read scripture with understanding

Continuing your negative nay-saying does not contribute to a better understanding. Implying that I am somehow "lost" is mind-reading.

And you are "found"?

15,742 posted on 11/11/2010 8:15:36 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15730 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis

“What kind of a “proof” is that, and how can anyone blame the Jews, given that they didn’t have the NT!?”

But the Jews in Jesus time did have one who claimed to be the Messiah, Jesus, and he authenticated his claim by miracles; applying the prophecies of Isaiah to himself; and the resurrection. Each time he did they rejected the claim. They were looking for a political Messiah who would usher back in the “golden age” of David and Solomon and when he did not accede to their aspirations they rejected him.

The requirement for salvation has always been faith. The object of one’s faith for salvation has always been God. What has changed through the ages is the content of a believer’s faith. God’s requirement of what must believed is based on the amount of revelation He has given mankind up to that time. They had the living Christ and did not believe.


15,743 posted on 11/11/2010 8:25:12 PM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15739 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor
How can the NT compare with the live testimony and miracles of Jesus Himself?

Where you there? besides, the OT does not predict that messiah will do miracles or change the order of things. Jesus is simply not mentioned by name or otherwise hinted i.e. Bethlehem, etc.) with any specifically identifiable events of places. The hints are vague. The NT "witness" to the OT speaking of Jesus in particular is written after the fact (some 30-40 years).

At the same time, there are incopmatibe things mentioned in the OT that definitely tell Isiah and others were not writing about Jesus in particular. Things such as the suffeirng servant fathering literal, physical offspring (the Hebrew word used means "sperm"), or that God prolonged his life strongly suggest the "prophesies" are not about him.

Finally, God being God's servant makes no sense to a Jew (or any reasonable person).

15,744 posted on 11/11/2010 8:27:02 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15741 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Prophecy of the future is often not explicit but Isaiah clearly foretold the coming of a Messiah born in Bethlehem to a virgin. The key prophesies of Christ are missing in the Masoretic text or subtly different from those in Septuagint but it was the latter that was in use by Jews at the time. The complete Masoretic text was not published until many centuries later. Defenders of the Masoretic text may claim that parts of it were in circulation but Apostolic writings quote solely from the Septuagint. Paul must have learned the Septuagint in his rabbinical training.


15,745 posted on 11/11/2010 8:51:22 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15744 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; stfassisi; D-fendr; Kolokotronis
But the Jews in Jesus time did have one who claimed to be the Messiah, Jesus, and he authenticated his claim by miracles; applying the prophecies of Isaiah to himself; and the resurrection. Each time he did they rejected the claim

Where does the OT say the messiah would perform miracles, die and resurrect, or claim to be a literal son of God and not just by the title (like the angels and all anointed kings)? Perhaps that's why the Jews were not impressed with the alleged "authentications." They took his applying the prophesies to himself as vain blasmphemy.

Christian writers wrote their stories decades after the fact and had no one but the people who shared their views agree to agree with them. There are no extrabiblical accounts of the stuff that is alleged in the New Testament. It was all accepted by one person "witnessing" to another that he learned from another "witness," but in the long run very few people were really witnesses (John and Matthew only, assuming they wrote what we call their Gospels), especially Paul. It was all accepted on their word—all the way to this day.

They were looking for a political Messiah who would usher back in the “golden age” of David and Solomon and when he did not accede to their aspirations they rejected him

For the same reason the Christians reject the "revelation" of Joseph Smith's "Book of Mormon"—it doesn't fit their preconceived "truth" about what the messiah is supposed to be, based on their own scripture.

The requirement for salvation has always been faith

Why? Why does God require people to believe in him in order for him to save them from him?

Worship of any god requires faith, because there are no gods walking among us. And if someone were to claim to be God, people would want some proof. Why do people accept unproven testimonies written two thousand years ago by unknown authors about magical things no one else has seen and written about, on faith alone?

I will tell you why: fear, fear of death. Take out the "life everlasting" candy from Christianity and see how many stay in the pews.

God’s requirement of what must believed is based on the amount of revelation He has given mankind up to that time. They had the living Christ and did not believe

They did not believe because the great preponderance of the OT "revelation" says nothing of God's literal Son, who will become man, and call himself Jesus, who will perform miracles of rising people from the dead and what not, who will be crucified and die and who will resurrect on the third day, despite anonymous Christian writings to the contrary (which did not exist in Jesus' time but were written decades later).

15,746 posted on 11/11/2010 8:54:52 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15743 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor
Prophecy of the future is often not explicit but Isaiah clearly foretold the coming of a Messiah born in Bethlehem to a virgin He did? Where?

The key prophesies of Christ are missing in the Masoretic text or subtly different from those in Septuagint but it was the latter that was in use by Jews at the time.

The 10th century oldest Masoretic Text found in a Moscow synagogue agree perfectly with the pre-Christian Qumran copies of Isaiah.

Septuagint, on the other hand is a hypothetical entity because we only scanty parts of the pre-Christian Septuagint, but the other existing remnant are all Chritsian-era attempts to bring it to a closer agreement with the Mesoretic Text and are 2nd century AD work of Jewish scribes.

Apostolic writings quote solely from the Septuagint. Paul must have learned the Septuagint in his rabbinical training

They quote mostly form it (over 93% of the time) simply because Gospels were written in Greek. Jewish Encyclopedia very effectively debunks the myth that Paul had any formal rabbinical training.

15,747 posted on 11/11/2010 9:03:13 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15745 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; RnMomof7
Funny how that works. First they declare THEMSELVES infallible. Then they declare their beliefs infallible

Yeah, funny how that works! :) First mortal men write books, then other mortal men say it's the infallible word of God, which others take on their word.

Who can argue with such a fallible-proof system

You can't, because they tell you that you don't have the "eyes" and the "ears" or the ability to read with understanding their "word of God." It's a neat way of getting out of having to prove anything.

15,748 posted on 11/11/2010 9:13:02 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15734 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; stfassisi; kosta50
“I say that those who are suffering in hell, are suffering in being scourged by love.... It is totally false to think that the sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love. Love is a child of the knowledge of truth, and is unquestionably given commonly to all. But love’s power acts in two ways: it torments sinners, while at the same time it delights those who have lived in accord with it” +Isaac the Syrian ----- I don’t think we are in agreement, FK.

Well then, I would have to fully agree with you that we are not in agreement. :) I don't think I've seen anything like this before.

..... but I don’t believe that +Isaac was preaching universal salvation. He was far too intent on God’s respect for man’s Free Will choices to believe that.

Yes, I've never heard that as being a part of Orthodoxy.

I suppose it is true that everyone, at some point, inclines to God and turns from wickedness and it is certainly true that God’s mercy will ALWAYS outweigh a man’s sins. But if a man chooses not to accept the uncreated energies of God, His mercy and grace and love, God respects that choice.

OK, that's what was confusing me. It didn't sound like there was any separation between turning to God and accepting His mercy, etc. I take it that he meant those are distinguishing choices.

15,749 posted on 11/11/2010 9:46:33 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15711 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; RnMomof7; Forest Keeper
As in the past, your posts are most appreciated but I don't have either the time or the interest to respond to them in full simply because of their volume. It's a shame, because a little bit of Laconic brevity would be a more effective way for you communicating your views, imo.

The idea that one's household is “sanctified” and not “unclean” is a Jewish one, but it did not make ones sons saved,

Sanctification follows justification (salvation). If the household is "sanctified' then it is "saved" and as such "set aside for God" 9sanctified).

 It was normal for families to follow the father's lead in faith, but the requirement for baptism require repentance and whole-hearted faith.

Paul didn't hold much to baptism, or perfor many. His main tenet was that you are saved by faith or by proxy (if you married a believer), not by baptism. The baptism that matter is of the Spirit, so there is no need for water baptism if you think about it in Pauline theology.

does not mean they need not make the response the gospel requires to receive the unearned gift, but that they were chosen to do so

But is their making the response ever in question? Whether God forces their response or just foreknows how they will feel on that they is irrelevant. The dice have been cast; the actual event is only a matter of going through the hoops. The outcome is never in doubt. You are sitting on a train bound for a station; what you do on it is of no consequence.

Even on a theoretical level a perfect being can be utterly unselfish in calling for such, if that is what is best for his subjects

God decides what is best for the subjects. He is not guided by a higher necessity. A God who demands that people adore him and worship him is a narcissistic God. It's not about his subjects but about him. But I will take it back and not even call it narcissistic, because it is beyond narcissistic. It is outright petty. It would certainly seem rather petty if a human were to expect that lowly little ants in his back yard, stop and drop on their little faces on a daily basis, or to expect them to adore him ebcause he doesn't step on them.

It seems to me that the love proclaimed by the Christians have for their God has a lot to do with the prospect of the "everlasting life" and that without it, I have a feeling, very few would be devoted to the Christian God. So, it is not true love, if you think about, but a "love" motivated by fear.

Moreover, what you choose reveals what you really love and esteem

That's not always the case.

Thus God calls men to “choose ye this day whom ye will serve;”

Except the scenario is such that there really is no choice...LOL!

Yet if God forced conversion then men would also object, which would be the case if He made faith in Him so utterly overwhelming that no one could not find anything by which they may rationalize unbelief.

Congratulations! You have just convinced yourself that man saves himself (as Judaism teaches) and what Pelagius allegedly believed.

It is not just the Protestant God who is misconstrued, and in the Bible God is constantly giving, giving man both good things and good laws, which He misuses and breaks...

Yeah, that darn man. Makes you wonder why would God even make him, except apaprently to have someone to look at and see himself (sarcasm), i.e. moody, narcissistic, selfish, petty, inefficient, somoene always capable of being driven to violence, demanidng, and endlessly wheeling and dealing and fixing things without rellay fixing anything.

15,750 posted on 11/11/2010 10:09:52 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15726 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 15,651-15,70015,701-15,75015,751-15,80015,801-15,828 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson