Posted on 06/15/2014 12:52:19 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Why don't you go to the site linked and read it for yourself?
You mentioned pro-life, didn’t explain your statement and so I figured you were accusing the nuns of performing abortions, the exact same way you and the anti-Catholics automatically figure these nuns starved the children to death because they hated all the children and really worked for the devil and not Christ. The Catholic haters really need to get a life. Read any good Dan Brown novels lately?
You're going to be the one with an omelet on his face if this DOES turn out to be another sad episode in the history of the Roman Catholic church. The more sensible and sane ones are already withholding final jugment until all the facts are known. Why don't you try it for a change?
I know what pro-life means. Too bad the vast majority of protestants don’t have a clue. It was the Catholic Church that stood alone after Roe v. Wade. Protestants could have cared less. The Catholic Church cares for humans from the minute of conception to the minute they take their last breath. No institution in the history of man has done more for their fellow man than the Catholic Church. None. From starting hospitals, to feeding the poor in every corner of the world, to educating millions and bringing the gospel to them, the Catholic Church has been doing it for 2,000 years.
“If your right, then you are reading a different book than I am.”
No, not if you mean the Holy Bible. I read it. You are simply wrong.
“Sadly you are wrong as most with your cut [sic] on things are.”
Again, no. You are on the wrong side here.
“I have heard way too many pastors, local, and those of the level of David Jeremiah say what I said.”
ROTFLMAO, so? That many are as foolish as you means what to me? I read the Word, I follow the Word. You appear to follow fools.
“You must be following Simile Joel.”
Nope. Our Lord is my Master. Sad that you ignore His Word.
...it would be most interesting to hear what the Bible Thumping Brigade has to say about your link
That's simple. The link simply does not say they decided not to print bibles with the apocrypha to save money, versus the compelling reason being doctrinal and demand. And if a demand had existed then it could cost them $ales or donations.
But from what is said then it essentially appears to be based on doctrinal reasons. And as a charity mission it would not be wise to include nonessential material, and instead to stay with the ancient Hebrew canon, while scholarly doubts and disagreements about books continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent , which provided the first infallible definition of the canon after Luther died. He was not alone in his nonbinding dissent.
In 1826,[21] the British and Foreign Bible Society decided that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. Since then most modern editions of the Bible and reprintings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section. In the 18th century, the Apocrypha section was omitted from the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims version. In the 1979 revision of the Vulgate, the section was dropped. Modern reprintings of the Clementine Vulgate commonly omit the Apocrypha section. Many reprintings of older versions of the Bible now omit the apocrypha and many newer translations and revisions have never included them at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
From the early days, the Society sought to be ecumenical and non-sectarian, and from 1813 allowed inclusion of the Biblical Apocrypha. Controversy in 1825-6 about the Apocrypha and the Metrical Psalms resulted in the secession of the Glasgow and Edinburgh Bible Societies, which later formed what is now the Scottish Bible Society.[3] A similar 1831 controversy about Unitarians holding significant Society offices resulted in a minority separating to form the Trinitarian Bible Society. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_and_Foreign_Bible_Society
“it is the Holy Spirit - not baptism - which softens the heart to believe”
Rejection of the mystical is one step toward rejection of God.
Being dipped into water is one biblical meaning of baptism but being dipped into water does not make a person "know the only true God and Jesus Christ who He sent".
Oh Look, a Catholic attacking the bible again.
OK, wow..
So who’s not going to heaven?
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.