Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $7,059
8%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 8% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by imardmd1

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/06/2015 8:31:51 AM PDT · 705 of 746
    imardmd1 to CynicalBear

    Yeah, you are right. And since contradictions seem to threaten their church and family ties, sadly they cling to their errors even more strongly.

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/06/2015 3:32:46 AM PDT · 701 of 746
    imardmd1 to Petrosius
    "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man. (Council of Trent (1547):DS1528)

    The critical and fundamental insistence that justification is a process like sanctification is entirely negated by the mouth of God as Jesus Messiah is entirely eradicated by the following Scriptural passage:

    "Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
    The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
    I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
    And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
    Luk 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted" (Lk. 18:10 -14 AV)

    The response to a saving faith is instantaneous justification, and in this passage it is in the perfect tense: The repentant confessing faithful stands saved and justified instantaneously, with everlasting effect, while the works-doer cannot earn his way into Jesus' favor, and Jesus clearly points this out to his disciples.

    So be it, and take heed. You can scratch out Post #24 on this.

    I will be using this as an example of displaying false salvation doctrine to my students, actually today.

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/06/2015 2:16:44 AM PDT · 700 of 746
    imardmd1 to MHGinTN

    Excellent research! This goes in my notes!

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/06/2015 1:37:01 AM PDT · 697 of 746
    imardmd1 to Elsie; Mrs. Don-o
    There is NO 'covenant' here at all!

    But even if there were, all God's covenants are unilateral. God doesn't negotiate on these things, AFIK. To think otherwise is to not know Him at all, eh?

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/06/2015 1:30:19 AM PDT · 695 of 746
    imardmd1 to CynicalBear
    The assumption of Mary as well.

    The assumption that Mary was assumed bodily assumes evidence for which neither assumption has a Scriptural basis, eh?

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/05/2015 2:25:11 PM PDT · 676 of 746
    imardmd1 to Mrs. Don-o
    I don't deny the Rapture. I'd say Mary was definitely Raptured. :o)

    You have absolutely no Biblical evidence of that. Only the doctrine of assumption of Enoch and Elijah can lay claim to that

    "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22 AV).

    All must die. Enoch and Elijah have yet to die the natural death. Even Jesus had to die because of sin. All beings having Adam's flesh DNA must die. Mary died. Her flesh body is dead.

    "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation" (Heb 9:27,28 AV).

    Her earthly body is in the grave. Though especially blessed, she needed a Savior (Lk. 1:47).

    The only assumption we can rely on is that her soul and spirit that constitute her personality is in heaven, longing for the sinless body yet to come. Mary will get hers when every other regenerated saint does, and that is when we go to meet Him in the clouds.

    Nobody, repeat nobody, except Jesus, has yet donned the new sinless, bloodless spiritual body.

  • The Real Insidiousness of the Supremes

    07/05/2015 1:20:12 PM PDT · 18 of 22
    imardmd1 to Truth29
    The court is now just another weapon to be used against the USA.

    This is how Hitler obtained "lawful" control over the courts to get te ability to eradicate"untermenschen," whom he could declare as non-humans, as animals, something between monkeys and cretins, depending on how those dominant one defines heritage, intellect, morality, and/or utilitarian value to society.

    Hitler's position was crafted by lawyers through the judicial system, IIRC. All laid out for O.

  • 6/11/14: Prepper’s Underground Guide to Improvised Weapons! How to Protect Yourself W/out a Firearm

    07/05/2015 12:47:43 PM PDT · 4 of 10
    imardmd1 to 2ndDivisionVet

    later

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/04/2015 8:37:52 AM PDT · 502 of 746
    imardmd1 to Elsie
    This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them.

    Protesters correcting the Judaizers, I guess.

  • Fortnight For Freedom: The Catholic Roots of the Declaration of Independence

    07/04/2015 8:17:08 AM PDT · 56 of 57
    imardmd1 to j.argese

    Thanks for your snotty reply. I’ll take it under advisement.

  • Fortnight For Freedom: The Catholic Roots of the Declaration of Independence

    07/04/2015 8:13:21 AM PDT · 55 of 57
    imardmd1 to Wyrd bið ful aræd

    The Inquisition covered many other things then, for at leasta couple of centuries. Auto da fe is not OK. Huguenots and Pilgrims were subjects of persecution.

  • Fortnight For Freedom: The Catholic Roots of the Declaration of Independence

    07/03/2015 5:48:47 PM PDT · 52 of 57
    imardmd1 to Wyrd bið ful aræd

    As in the Spanish Inquisition, fueled as it was by the riches stolen from America from Ferdinand and Isabella onward.

  • Fortnight For Freedom: The Catholic Roots of the Declaration of Independence

    07/03/2015 4:09:36 PM PDT · 50 of 57
    imardmd1 to Wyrd bið ful aræd

    Inquisition-bred tactics applied, must be

  • Fortnight For Freedom: The Catholic Roots of the Declaration of Independence

    07/03/2015 4:07:07 PM PDT · 49 of 57
    imardmd1 to NKP_Vet

    When I wrote Post #2, “Catholic” was not in the list, or I wouldn’t have written what I did. Someone added “Caholic” later—you are only allowed to add four topics to begin with. So don’t get huffy if someone calls you on this issue.

  • Fortnight For Freedom: The Catholic Roots of the Declaration of Independence

    07/03/2015 3:46:58 PM PDT · 48 of 57
    imardmd1 to MamaB
    My dear MB, just a mid-course correction:

    Mayflower sailed: 1620-21

    Passengers: about half were Pilgrims, the makeup of the rest being non-religious commoners who would come under the rule of the Pilgrims

    Puritans/Quakers/Congregationalists came later. Baptists: came into being later, first London Confession not written until 1689

    Methodists: Their chief architect was John Wesley, born 1703

    Declaration of Independence: One Catholic signer, the rest non-Catholic or Deist, no Jews

  • Fortnight For Freedom: The Catholic Roots of the Declaration of Independence

    07/03/2015 2:44:02 PM PDT · 41 of 57
    imardmd1 to j.argese
    .. The most quoted man at the time of the Declaration of Independence was Montesquieu John Locke.

    (fixed that, heh)

  • Fortnight For Freedom: The Catholic Roots of the Declaration of Independence

    07/03/2015 2:38:11 PM PDT · 40 of 57
    imardmd1 to Wyrd bið ful aræd
    Your statement is rendered false in its entirety by the Catholic founding of Maryland, . . .

    Your statement erroneous, because Maryland had to be taken over by Huguenots and run properly.

  • Fortnight For Freedom: The Catholic Roots of the Declaration of Independence

    07/03/2015 8:07:23 AM PDT · 2 of 57
    imardmd1 to NKP_Vet
    Interesting.

    Yeah. It's so interesting that our English forbears came here principally to get away from the statist church and its Romanist roots. That this country was rooted in RCC doctrine? I don't think so. Another attempt to claim a nonexistent superiority of principle.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    07/02/2015 2:38:08 PM PDT · 291 of 306
    imardmd1 to CynicalBear; terycarl
    Correction:

    >> Because it was not a lawfully called meeting (verse 30 39) . . . <<

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    07/02/2015 2:17:20 PM PDT · 290 of 306
    imardmd1 to CynicalBear; terycarl
    The ekklesia of Christ have no cathedrals in Rome or anywhere else.

    Right. An ekklesia is not a building, It is just a gathering of people summoned (called out) to a meeting for a specific purpose, like that of the guild of silversmiths (Acts 19:24,32) whose source of income was making small statuettes of the god Diana for tourists.

    Because it was not a lawfully called meeting (verse 30), the local town clerk dismissed the assembly--in Greek the "ekklesia"--of artisans and sent them home (verse 41).

    CB, I know you are aware of this--this is just a comment for the benefit of other participants who do not understand that "church" simply means the meeting of a club when the members are gathered together regarding their common interest.

    The place where they meet is not the ekklesia.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    07/02/2015 10:59:57 AM PDT · 288 of 306
    imardmd1 to Elsie

    Ah-choo to you, bro

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    07/02/2015 5:48:11 AM PDT · 275 of 306
    imardmd1 to Elsie

    Ah! a catecumen!

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    07/01/2015 2:25:15 PM PDT · 233 of 306
    imardmd1 to Elsie
    . . . Catholic Experts . . .

    An "ex" is a has-been, and a "spert" is a drip under pressure. (/bg)

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    07/01/2015 2:19:53 PM PDT · 231 of 306
    imardmd1 to sasportas
    Actually, I don't believe you have a grasp of this topic. In fact, I memorized the entire book of Hebrews, word for word, over a period of nine years, and have studied it in both English and Greek over a period of some 25 years.

    You need to study what John Baptist and Jesus were preaching about the Kingdom of "The heavens" (only appearing as such) in Matthew, versus the Kingdom of God. When you understand that, you will understand what I said:

    THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN AND THE KINGDOM OF THE GOD

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/01/2015 2:03:21 PM PDT · 73 of 746
    imardmd1 to Salvation
    Again? Trying to tell us (Catholics) what we believe and why we believe it?

    Look, y'all have made it clear, over and over again, what you believe in, because you keep saying it over and over and over again.

    And we keep throwing the life-line out to you over and over and over again, through compassion for the lost.

    Y'all keep throwing back your faith in your "church," the traditions of ante-Nicene "patristcs," and reliance on the literalness of the Eucharist, and how to earn enough penance-karma for Peter to give you a pass from Purgatory to Heaven.

    Back in 1888, the preacher, evangelist, and song-writer Edward Ufford challenged those who would broadcast the True Gospel to misled and Hell-bent religionists:

    =======

    Throw out the Life-Line across the dark wave,
    There is a brother whom some one should save;
    Somebody's brother! oh, who then will dare
    To throw out the Life-Line, his peril to share?

    Throw out the Life-Line!
    Throw out the Life-Line!
    Some-one is drifting away;
    Throw out the Life-Line!
    Throw out the Life-Line!
    Some one is sinking today.

    Throw out the Life-Line with hand quick and strong:
    Why do you tarry. why linger so long?
    See! he is sinking; oh, hasten today--
    And out with the Life-Boat! away, then, away!

    Throw out the Life-Line to danger-fraught men,
    Sinking in anguish where you've never been:
    Winds of temptation and billows of woe
    Will soon hurl them out where the dark waters flow.

    Soon will the season of rescue be o'er
    Soon will they drift to eternity's shore,
    Haste then, my brother, no time for delay,
    But throw out the Life-Line and save them today.

    Jesus is able! To you who are driv’n
    Farther and farther from God and from Heav’n,
    Helpless and hopeless, o’erwhelmed by the wave,
    We throw out the lifeline—’tis, "Jesus can save."

    This is the lifeline, oh, grasp it today!
    See, you are recklessly drifting away;
    Voices in warning, shout over the wave,
    Oh, grasp the strong lifeline, for Jesus can save.

    " =======

    Here's the Life-Line, as heralded by Peter, the spiritual failure in his own efforts no man to lead or save, when gotten right in his final grasp of his Master's simple doctrine:

    "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you."

    After six denials of rejecting knowledge of, or fellowship with Jesus the Nazarene, Peter most certainly knew that only Jesus saves. And that is what we are trying to tell you; we, who now have utter confidence through personal experience in our places at the Remembrance Table, and in in our daily walk with the Lord, personally enjoying His voice teaching us from His Word, incomparably far above the voices of of men long dead who misunderstood the Macedonian jailer's call:

    "Come Jesus, and save me, by your promise, both now and forever, from trying to earn my way into your favor!"

    Or are you, like many of the vaunted patristics, too proud to respond so humbly and helpless?

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    06/30/2015 10:29:06 PM PDT · 190 of 306
    imardmd1 to Petrosius; sasportas; MHGinTN; Mark17
    Correction: Left out a very important three-letter word!

    "The visible churches belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, full of wheat and tares, good fish and bad fish, and other gross impurities, mostly fomenting doctrinal divisions, and the RCC denomination is only one of them, thus making the whole sphere of earthly Christianity distinctively not catholic.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    06/30/2015 10:24:42 PM PDT · 189 of 306
    imardmd1 to Petrosius; sasportas; MHGinTN; Mark17
    How foolish! When, then, was the Catholic Church founded? And what happened to the Christian church that preceded it? By the way, the earliest use of the word "Catholic" to describe the church was by St. Ignatius of Antioch who was martyred in A.D. 107. That's pretty early.

    It might be unwise t someone making this assumption to call another contender "foolish."

    In fact, in the beginning, there was no "catholic" church. There were only churches, each one autonomous and loyal to Christ as its Head, with congregationally elected/appointed elders and deacons. There were no "priests" because the Jewish system of sacrifices was done away with by the single, never-to-repeated Cross atonement in the punished body and shed blood of the Lamb. According to Peter, every regenerated believer-disciple was a priest unto God.

    Ignatius did mention the word "catholic," but for him it was just an idea, not a physical visible overarching complement of supernumerary overseers constituting a para-church polity by which the local churches were governed from without, in a fascist sort of way, not being local, egalitarian, and democratic. There was no such thing as a "denomination," like Methodism or Episcopalian, or Romanism.

    And truly, if there had been a superimposed catholic principle, there would have been no purpose or need for multi-church councils to obtain consensus throughout the Christian world, would there, eh?

    Furthermore, until Augustine formulated a Platonic concept to explain away the presence of impurity in the churches that involved an invisible unified "pure" church in this world, there was no implementation of the Platonic oversoul principle through the non-christian term "catholic" that described that Augustine invention.

    The invisible Church of Christ exists since His ascension only in Heaven, and is the Kingdom of The God. It is not of this world. The writer of Hebrews described it as:

    "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
    To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
    And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel" (Heb 12:22-24 AV).

    The visible churches belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, full of wheat and tares, good fish and bad fish, and other gross impurities, mostly fomenting doctrinal divisions, and the RCC denomination is only one of them, thus making the whole sphere of earthly Christianity distinctively catholic.

    There's a lot more, but this is enough for mow.

    How about playing a different tune? (I suppose it's hard when one's instrument has only one string.)

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    06/30/2015 2:50:46 AM PDT · 147 of 306
    imardmd1 to Amendment10
    Again, corrections welcome.

    Progressive revelation of Holy Scripture continued from Jesus' ascension throughout the ministry of His Apostles who were the personally supervised and taught practitioners of the discipline of Jesus--God manifest in the flesh--until Beloved John put down his pen at the end of his life, about 65 years after his training under the Messiach of Israel.

    At that time, the giving of Holy Scriptures was completed, never to be supplemented by those who were not eyewitnesses and companions of The Christ, to whom His authority was firectly delegated.

    However, the Scriptures as we know them were then in the possession of the churches, though the straining out of imitations, corruptions, and post-Johannine additions were not yet complete; nor was consensus as to the selection of writings (affirmed as inspired and plenarily delivered, being traceable to witnesses of the original autographs) was not yet fully settled.

    But the churches did possess the complete canon of all the written teachings of the New Covenant. Of them God has promised to preserve the texts authored and delivered through His witnesses. This transmission has by faith taken place through faithful copies of the autographs, distributed widely to the new churches, taking the form of the Byzantine/Majority Textform.

    In comparison, no reliance should be placed on the Critical text synthesized out of three basic corrupted codices by Brooke Foss Westcott and his protegee Fenton John Anthony Hort. Inasmuch as it never existed and was never-before seen in the human community of churches until their presentation of it to the nineteenth-century scholastic guilds, it is not really representative of the autographs. Lacking forensic continuity-of-evidence traceability and admitted imperfections, this eclectic "Critical" text is constantly, continuously being changed, so it cannot be the Word of God.

    It is especially inferior when being interpreted in the dynamic-equivalency hermeneutic, because it defrauds the sincere spiritual God-seeking Bible student of his right to accessing the mindset of the first-century speaker of the Koine Greek, for whom no translation nor exegetical labors were needed, and in whose framework the New Testament Scriptures were written, primarly to and for Gentiles.

    So, yes, if one is reading the New International Version and wondering if it is the same Scripture as inspired and written down by the holy men of old, the answer is "No." Only the text-form transmitted through the Byzantine churches, gathered by Desiderius Erasmus, printed by Stephanus, and translated by martyrs of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, do we have a faithful English translation polished by James Stuart's scholars, and presented to the English-speaking world by authorization of the Crown, in whose copyright the text still resides.

    It is free for the taking, and it is the foundation by which many plow-boys, cowboys, milk-maids, and bar girls have escaped the clutches of Satan's minions, and found their way to God's Eternal Life, and union with their Savior.

    Just an observation --

  • What does the term “Ichabod” mean in the Bible?

    06/30/2015 12:18:40 AM PDT · 3 of 7
    imardmd1 to Faith Presses On
    Very, very good topic for the soul-searhing review of Bible Christians of themselves and their pastor to tolerate impurity in their own conduct that gives the faux-christian imitators confidence in their religiousness.

    It is not yet past time for each of us to take a self-inventory of commitment to our Savior's commandments and keeping them watchfully secure.

    "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in The Faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2Cor. 13:5 AV).

    A moment taken to check out the occurrences of the words "in The Faith" will be not without profit:

    "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
    Whom resist stedfast in The Faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
    But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you" (1Pet. 5:8-10 AV).

    Fellow-heirs of The Kingdom, there is suffering yet to come. Be prepared: meek toward the right, rebellious toward the wrong. Satan is now frolicking about with little hindrance but us.

  • Percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. is 48 percent.

    06/29/2015 2:43:07 AM PDT · 61 of 63
    imardmd1 to ansel12
    That is what you thought that post was saying?

    Actually, no. What I thought is that you did not get the point, and that you thought Cruz or Palin as President would be able to wind up nominating a conservative Constitutional Supreme who was also a Protestant.

    Here's the point for you to think through:

    If the pool of capable lawyers and judges from whom appointees to the Supreme Court are to be selected are predominantely Catholics or Jews or agnostics or atheists or Muslims, the President--be it Ted Cruz or Sara Palin, or a buffoon--will not likely be able to find anyone for the Supreme Court from that pool who is not a Catholic, or Jew, or agnostic, or atheist, or Muslim.

    Therefore the Supreme Court will consist of Catholics, Jews, agnostics, atheists, and/or Muslims, regardless of the religious preferences of whoever is President.

    Whoever is nominated to the Supreme Court must have some prior experience in jurisprudence, so therefore you cannot be saying that Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin belong on the Supreme Court, could you?

  • Einstein vs Bergson, Science vs Philosophy and the Meaning of Time

    06/28/2015 8:48:21 PM PDT · 35 of 35
    imardmd1 to FatherofFive
    >> “No, but I know where I am was.” <<

    (Fixed that . . .)

  • Percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. is 48 percent.

    06/27/2015 10:55:35 AM PDT · 58 of 63
    imardmd1 to ansel12

    Ah. I see that you want Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin appointed to the Supreme Court by a Protestant President, right?

  • Percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. is 48 percent.

    06/27/2015 9:08:25 AM PDT · 41 of 63
    imardmd1 to ansel12
    Ted Cruz is an example, Sarah Palin, both able and qualified.

    As I thought, I didn't make myself clear. What pool of able and qualified jurists does any President have from which to nominate candidates for the Supreme Court (or any Federal Court, for that matter)?

    The candidate's religion is not to be a qualification for selection; only his/her effectiveness in the law profession is to count.

    If there are not a lot of Protestant lawyers interested in the judiciary, there will not be a fair number of Protestants represented in the group, will there?

  • Percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. is 48 percent.

    06/27/2015 8:26:10 AM PDT · 38 of 63
    imardmd1 to Campion
    because of the choices of "Protestant" (self-described) presidents.

    Presidents, Protestant or not, only have a pool of candidates from which to choose. Where are the able and qualified Protestants?

  • Percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. is 48 percent.

    06/27/2015 8:16:11 AM PDT · 37 of 63
    imardmd1 to Leaning Right
    And Congress should defer to that "right" except in extreme circumstances.

    I only got this far when Judge Bork immediately popped into my mind. I've read his books, and felt that Biden's victory over rationality at least freed Bork to write them, condemning the modern direction of the Supreme Court.

    What a shame.

  • Miley Cyrus Mocks Christians Who Believe in Old Testament 'Fairy Tales'

    06/27/2015 7:22:41 AM PDT · 169 of 170
    imardmd1 to Elsie

    OK. As before . . .

  • Ted Cruz’ Callous Disregard of History

    06/27/2015 1:00:49 AM PDT · 20 of 62
    imardmd1 to 2ndDivisionVet
    Pastor Marty doesn't understand that Christians are now no longer on the verge of another of the Dark Ages. They are now irreversibly in it, on several levels. The first is being, as a nation founded by His followers, in God's court--tried, found guilty, and ready for sentencing.

    Marty needs to hide his Bible before it's taken away.

    Fahrenheit 451 --

  • How Christianity invented children

    06/26/2015 11:36:00 PM PDT · 16 of 46
    imardmd1 to Vince Ferrer
    >> Plus many of our precious precocious illegal immigrants . . . <<

    (There, fixed that . . .)

  • Scalia: Gay marriage decision shows court is America's 'ruler'

    06/26/2015 11:21:03 PM PDT · 45 of 47
    imardmd1 to Jan_Sobieski

    See you there, Jan—need some aviator goggles, eh?

  • Scalia: Gay marriage decision shows court is America's 'ruler'

    06/26/2015 3:31:32 PM PDT · 36 of 47
    imardmd1 to Jan_Sobieski

    No, Jan. This says Sodomites and their supporters are our rulers.

  • Romans 1: 20 - 32

    06/26/2015 11:15:28 AM PDT · 26 of 28
    imardmd1 to Anitius Severinus Boethius
    . . . those believers are just as guilty as those trapped in the lifestyle of homosexuality.

    Amen. Perhaps more so, for they facilitate it without excuse.

  • Miley Cyrus Mocks Christians Who Believe in Old Testament 'Fairy Tales'

    06/26/2015 10:22:19 AM PDT · 167 of 170
    imardmd1 to Elsie

    How about you go first on this one, eh?

  • Miley Cyrus Mocks Christians Who Believe in Old Testament 'Fairy Tales'

    06/25/2015 8:55:41 PM PDT · 165 of 170
    imardmd1 to Elsie
    This only works ONE way; eh?

    And which way is that? I've taken my bumps and apologized when justly criticized --

  • Miley Cyrus Mocks Christians Who Believe in Old Testament 'Fairy Tales'

    06/25/2015 8:38:12 PM PDT · 164 of 170
    imardmd1 to Elsie

    I think I made my point with your query.

  • Miley Cyrus Mocks Christians Who Believe in Old Testament 'Fairy Tales'

    06/25/2015 8:35:14 PM PDT · 163 of 170
    imardmd1 to Mrs. Don-o
    I will pray for those other people you mentioned, too.

    OK, then who is it that Apostle John is warning about?

    "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it."

    I don't know why you're bothered by this idea of praying for sinners.

    Aside from exercising clairvoyance, what gives you the idea that I do not pray for and minister to "sinners"?

    Compassion expressed as prayer is never "misplaced", . . .

    "Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: . . ." (Jude 1:21,22 AV).

    Not all, some will just turn your compassion against you, showing you it was misplaced.

    . . . since we try to be good to friend and enemy, the just and the unjust: . . .

    ". . . 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. 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 . . . " (Jude 1:4,5 AV).

    Watch out for such. Through foreknowledge, God knows that they are determined not to be saved. They defy His preferred will to save rather than destroy.

    . . . this is a kind of caring which Jesus commends as being "perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

    This kind of "compassion" is not Spirit-led compassion, It is only commiseration. In contrast, in the night in which He was betrayed, Jesus prayed with true compasion:

    "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: . . . I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine" (Jn. 17:6a,9 AV).

    I ask you, did He then pray for Judas the Betrayer? Did He pray for Simon Peter?

    "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven" (Mt. 10:33 AV).

    Did He not distinguish between two deniers? In the end, Peter believed the Word and was converted; Judas did not. And then Jesus went through the fire of The God's righteous, fiery wrath to save His Faithful Own:

    "And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" (Jude 1:23 AV).

    I'll add you to my prayer list.(I've gotta write these things down . . .

    You might want to think this over, for if by any means you are a constituent of an iniquitous religion of works-oriented salvation, the effectiveness your prayers might be open to question:

    "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:" (Ps. 66:18 AV).

    And I will continue to pray that you can come to a Heavenly residence through faith alone, based on Scripture alone, invested in Jesus Alone, the sole and only Begotten Of God, through His Redemptive Blood, once offered for our reconciliation with His Father and our God.

    I trust that you will open a trustworthy version of the Bible, and read and ponder on Jude, as well as the corresponding passage in 2 Peter 1:10-11; 2:1-22; 3:15-18, esp. verse 16.

    Miley Cyrus is no longer a child, and the Bible has something to say about the consequences of her behavior.

  • Miley Cyrus Mocks Christians Who Believe in Old Testament 'Fairy Tales'

    06/25/2015 1:43:56 PM PDT · 161 of 170
    imardmd1 to Elsie
    Can a leopard change his spots?

    OK, who's the leopard in this analogy? is it LC? or is it the Christ-rejector who has gone beyond the point of no return with God?

  • Miley Cyrus Mocks Christians Who Believe in Old Testament 'Fairy Tales'

    06/24/2015 10:44:01 PM PDT · 154 of 170
    imardmd1 to Mrs. Don-o
    This indicates that it is possible for "fornicators, idolators" "the effeminate" and "liers with mankind" as well as other slaves of vice, to repent and receive the Lord's mercy, and be purified, sanctified, justified.

    The key is "some," the few who were honest with themselves and knowingly did not reject redemption and reconciliation through His Son. Miss Cyrus does not appear to be in that select group, nor willing to admit she is deadly, Satanically wrong.

    I will pray for Miley Cyrus. All of us sinners need prayers.

    Go to it! We'll see if it works as well as for Alice B Toklas and Gertrude Stein. While you're at it, you might want to include the womyn Gloria Steinem and Chelsea Sayre, and any other transwomen you can think of. Or you could send them some evangelistic tracts or a cautionary letter regarding the end consequences of their ways.

    Scolding me on this issue will probably not be very profitable in converting me to your views, I suspect--or your readers either.

    I don't think your logic works out, taken in the whole Biblical view. If God alone saves, but gives one up, I don't think that individual then has much hope, going on.

  • Miley Cyrus Mocks Christians Who Believe in Old Testament 'Fairy Tales'

    06/24/2015 10:15:13 PM PDT · 153 of 170
    imardmd1 to Elsie
    I guess we can call all of our missionaries, pastors and teachers home. The game is over!

    The time is now to quit mocking, LC. What we are talking about here is not primtive tribes or decadent cultures to which we send missionaries, this chat is about individuals who, knowing of God's Person, righteousness, and Gospel of redemption reject it forcefully. It is not my theory that God can and does reject them who reject Him, and gives tem up to their depravities;. It is God Who announces it plainly in His Word.

    That is why faithful heralds of the Word of Faith, including missionaries (which every true disciple is), warn others that they can, and do, pass the point of no return while they are yet alive. It certainly must have been so with Pharaoh Ramses, Nero, Caligula, Mohammed, Torquemada, and Adolph Hitler, all determinedly sold out to Satan.

    Doubtless the dedication of Bruce Jenner and Miley Cyrus exactly fit the description given in the examples of how to get God to leave one alone, as explicit detailed in Romans 1 for all to see. They might get along quite well with these Satanic leaders of the past, eh?

    Jesus prayed for his disciples (including Peter who was to deny Jesus six times in that very night), but I do not see that He prayed for Judas Iscariot, or for Annas or Caiaphas, for that matter.

    On the cross, he prayed for God to forgive the ones who did not know what they were doing. Do you surmise that His Cross prayer prayer applies now to those who know exactly what they are doing when they reject the Christ of the Cross about Whom they have been taught, and revile His disciples because of their dedication to Him?

    After a while, your constant method of mocking gets a bit old; maybe to others who are the butts of your jokes also.

  • Miley Cyrus Mocks Christians Who Believe in Old Testament 'Fairy Tales'

    06/22/2015 10:43:17 AM PDT · 141 of 170
    imardmd1 to Elsie; Mrs. Don-o
    Like my Dad--a Methodist minister--taught me:

    "I do not have to answer for others' actions--I only have to answer for mine."

    Scales are not an excuse. I don't think I need to suggest that everyone review Romans Chapter One, but I will any how.

    Regardless of others' ignorant views and misplaced compassion, God's viewpoint in that text and context is that He has given up people like Miley Cyrus on the basis of (eis in the foundational sense) moral uncleanness, vile affections, unnatural use of their bodies, same-gender arousal to gratify their reproductive apparatus, and reprobate minds, with not only doing those things, but having great pleasure in encouraging others to join them in reviling Christians and their commitment to the Lord.

    If God has not saved them from their wickedness, then He has given them over to it, and Beloved John's mature spiritual counsel to immature disciples, according to what I read, is not to pray for such a one--don't waste your time. You might rather be spending the equivalent time praying for those who may yet be saved, and ministering to the saints who are being reviled and persecuted.

    Plus, it is just as evil to commend religionists whose works-based plan of salvation is just as evil in its sincere and persistent desire to gain followers to their system as Cyrus does for her ways; I think we ought to pray for them, not with them.

  • Miley Cyrus Mocks Christians Who Believe in Old Testament 'Fairy Tales'

    06/21/2015 7:11:41 PM PDT · 139 of 170
    imardmd1 to Elsie
    Weren't we ALL?

    I was, but God's verdict now is, "Not Guilty."

    This Christian-mocker will have to answer for herself.